sustainability

Article
What Are the Implications of Globalization
on Sustainability?—A Comprehensive Study
Sai Tang 1, *, Zhuolin Wang 2 , Gengqi Yang 1 and Wenwen Tang 1
1 School of Humanities, Social Science and Law, Harbin Institute of Technology, Harbin 150001, China;
17b916003@stu.hit.edu.cn (G.Y.); 17B310011@stu.hit.edu.cn (W.T.)
2 Department of Accounting, Harbin Finance University, Harbin 150040, China; 2013013@hrbfu.edu.cn
* Correspondence: tangsai6@aliyun.com or tangsai@yandex.com; Tel.: +86-451-82395050




Received: 26 February 2020; Accepted: 3 April 2020; Published: 22 April 2020


Abstract: It is becoming more and more certain that globalization is not just purely an economical
phenomenon; it is exhibiting itself on a worldwide level. Amid globalization’s observable appearances,
the most obvious are the larger international mobility of goods and services, flows of finance capital,
data and information and most importantly people. On top of that, there are technological progresses
and more international cultural interactions, which are facilitated by the enhancement of free
trade of large quantities of more differentiated goods and also through immigration and tourism.
The political changes and ecological concerns play an important part in this regard. In the current
study, sustainability Indices are linked with the KOF Globalization Index to understand if more
globalized countries are performing better in terms of sustainable development and its dimensions,
especially environmental sustainability. Sustainability indices such as Human Development Index
(HDI) and Environmental Performance Index (EPI) showed a stronger relation with different
levels of globalization while others (Red List Index (RLI), Environment Sustainability Index (ESI))
did not. The results reveal that globalization has a positive implication on sustainability in the
overall perspective.

Keywords: environmental sustainability; globalization; indicators; sustainable development

1. Introduction
One of the great economic and political stories of our time is related to Globalization. For the
“post-modern society” it was supposed to be one of the big new ideas [1]. Globalization gave fresh
importance to spatial economics along with the significance of financial and monetary layouts. This is
because of the longitudinal spread of specific economic activities in different geographical places
and the reduction of specific business in others [2–4]. The existing trend of globalization is a mere
subdivision of massive operational alterations which are the results of the Schumpeterian progression
in the technology, the spatial strength and possibility of connections between many factors at different
levels of the economy [5,6]. However, there are a lot of confusion and differences over discussions
as the process of globalization has diverse implications to various people [7–9]. Once there were
hopes that globalization would provide benefits to everybody universally. With the passage of time,
globalization’s disadvantages become more and more apparent [10–12]. It was initially expected,
on the basis of neoclassical equilibrium theory, that there would be an inflow of money into developing
countries due to the supposed higher rate of return there, resulting from relative scarcity as compared
to the developed world. The experience and observation indicates a flow in the opposite direction.
Joseph Stiglitz et al. [13] wrote that “Globalization seems to have unified so much of the world
against it, perhaps because there appears to be so many losers and so few winners . . . ” Globalization,
when well-managed, can provide better results to everyone or most of us. However, this has not

Sustainability 2020, 12, 3411; doi:10.3390/su12083411 www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability

Sustainability 2020, 12, 3411 2 of 11

happened. In the present scenario, globalization’s outreach has encompassed more and more nations
and people, making it untamable. For example, due to production globalization many millions of
Chinese obtained jobs, but there was a less than expected trickle-down effect in their well-being due to
uneven distribution of income which continued to be extremely concentrated [14–16].
The sustainability of globalization may or may not flow in a similar way for all countries. Some of
them like the United Kingdom and Japan might experience a better local atmosphere due to the
globalization process, while others like Bangladesh and Mexico can experience a declining and fading
environment. [17]. The same thing is applicable to the economic or social effects of the globalization
procedure. Moreover, sustainable development in one of the areas of globalization that may not
essentially be connected to sustainable growth in other domains, and what is practical for a nation might
not be possible for the international environment [18,19]. Of course, the desired result of globalization
for most people is one in which the global environment, society and economic system develops
sustainably, and all domestic environments improve including the welfare of all nations. However,
globalization is unlikely to achieve all of these objectives simultaneously [20]. This complexity of the
globalization procedures hence calls for a truly unified approach, joining social, economic as well
as ecological characteristics. Under a globalizing domain, policy-makers should be conscious of the
growths that take place all together in different fields, and the growing interconnectedness requires
being the initial point for sustainable international policies [21]. If global economic processes and
consumerism do have poisoning side-effects, the particular direction these dynamics require to acheive
justifiable future needs to be enquired. The long-existing “growth versus environment” tension can be
exposed, for which the term “sustainable development” has been invented. The demands for ecological
protection and economic growth are supposed to be conflicting [22]. It is claimed to be an everlasting
competition by some, whereas, others highlight a potential win-win situation [23,24].
Though there are various ways to define the complexity of the processes related to globalization,
the current paper uses an indicator-based approach [25,26]. The definition of globalization we adopt is
that of a phenomenon which explains the procedure of generating networks of associations among actors
at intra- or multi-continental distances, facilitated through a variety of flows including people, data and
concepts, capital, and commodities. It is a process that wears down national borders, assimilates
national economies, cultures, technologies and governance, producing complex associations of conjoint
interdependence [27]. For answering the questions related to the overall impact of globalization on the
countries’ sustainability, as well as to assess the significances of globalization in a rational and scientific
manner, the KOF Globalization Index is linked with Sustainable Development, Environmental, Red List
and Human Development Indices in this paper, for analyzing if more globalized nations are performing
better in relation to sustainable growth and its dimension.

2. The KOF Globalization Index (KOFGI)

The KOF Globalization Index (KOFGI) is used in this study as a measure of globalization which
is calculated on a yearly basis from 1970 to 2015 [25,27]. The KOF Globalization Index measures
the economic, social and political dimension to globalization. It is used in order to monitor changes
in the level of globalization of different countries over extended periods of time. The data are
normalized implying that each variable is transformed to an index with a scale from one to one
hundred, where 100 is assigned to the maximum value of a specific variable over the whole sample of
countries and the entire period of time which is the analogue to a transformation of the series according
to the percentiles of its original distribution. The procedure is called panel normalization which is
different to annual normalization where data are normalized across all countries in the same year
only. The resulting data are well-behaved in terms of sensitivity to outliers. Principal components
analysis is performed on a 10-year rolling window of data to determine time varying weights for the
individual variables which mean observations for t-10 until t-1 are used to compute the weights for
time t. The weights for the years 1970 to 1979 are set equal to the weights of the year 1980 given the
shorter time window. Principal components analysis partitions the variance of the variables used in
Sustainability 2020, 12, 3411 3 of 11

each sub-group and the weights are determined in a way that maximizes the variation of the resulting
principal component. The weights are calculated using the entire sample of countries at the same time.
With the time-varying weights for the variables, the weighting procedure has the possibility to adapt
to changes in the relevance of certain variables to capture globalization over time. While the weights
of individual variables can change over the years, the weights of the sub-indices are held fixed over the
time horizon. While de facto globalization measures actual flows and activities, de jure globalization
measures policies, resources, conditions and institutions that, in principle, enable or facilitate actual
flows and activities. Most globalization indices focus on de facto globalization.
Economic globalization is composed of trade globalization and financial globalization, of which
each gets a weight of 50 per cent within the economic dimension. Social globalization consists of
interpersonal, informational and cultural globalization, each of them contributing a third to the social
globalization index. Similarly weights are determined for political globalization. Economic, social and
political globalizations are aggregated to the Globalization Index using again equal weights.
Social globalization consists of interpersonal globalization, information globalization and cultural
globalization, where each contributes one third. Each segment consists of its own de facto and de jure
segments. Interpersonal contact is measured within the de facto segment with reference to international
telephone connections, tourist numbers and migration. The de jure segment is measured with
reference to telephone subscriptions, international airports and visa restrictions. Flows of information
are determined within the de facto segment with reference to international patent applications,
international students and trade in high technology goods. The de jure segment measures access to
TV and internet, freedom of the press and international internet connections. Cultural proximity is
measured in the de facto segment from trade in cultural goods, international trade mark registrations
and the number of McDonald’s restaurants and IKEA stores. The de jure area focuses on civil rights
(freedom of citizens), gender equality and public spending on school education.
The sub-domain of political globalization regarding the de facto segment is measured with
reference to the number of embassies and international non-governmental organizations (NGOs),
along with participation in UN peacekeeping missions. The de jure segment contains variables focusing
on membership of international organizations and international treaties (see Table 1).

Table 1. 2018 KOF Globalization Index structure (adopted from Gygli 2019).

Globalization Index, de Facto Weights Globalization Index, de Jure Weights

Economic Globalization, de facto 33.3 Economic Globalization, de jure 33.3
Trade Globalization, de facto 50.0 Trade Globalization, de jure 50.0
Trade in goods 38.8 Trade regulations 26.8
Trade in services 44.7 Trade taxes 24.4
Trade partner diversification 16.5 Tariffs 25.6
Trade agreements 23.2
Financial Globalization, de facto 50.0 Financial Globalization, de jure 50.0
Foreign direct investment 26.7 Investment restrictions 33.3
Portfolio investment 16.5 Capital account openness 1 38.5
International debt 27.6 Capital account openness 2 28.2
International reserves 2.1
International income payments 27.1
Sustainability 2020, 12, 3411 4 of 11

Table 1. Cont.

Globalization Index, de Facto Weights Globalization Index, de Jure Weights

Social Globalization, de facto 33.3 Social Globalization, de jure 33.3
Interpersonal Globalization, de facto 33.3 Interpersonal Globalization, de jure 33.3
International voice traffic 20.8 Telephone subscriptions 39.9
Transfers 21.9 Freedom to visit 32.7
International tourism 21.0 International airports 27.4
Migration 17.2
International students 19.1
Informational Globalization, de facto 33.3 Informational Globalization, de jure 33.3
Used internet bandwidth 37.2 Television 36.8
International patents 28.3 Internet user 42.6
High technology exports 34.5 Press freedom 20.6
Cultural Globalization, de facto 33.3 Cultural Globalization, de jure 33.3
Trade in cultural goods 28.1 Gender parity 24.7
Trademark applications 9.7 Expenditure on education 41.4
Trade in personal services 24.6 Civil freedom 33.9
McDonald’s restaurant 21.6
IKEA stores 16.0
Political Globalization, de facto 33.3 Political Globalization, de jure 33.3
Embassies 36.5 International organisations 36.2
UN peace keeping missions 25.7 International treaties 33.4
International NGOs 37.8 Number of partners in investment treaties 30.4

Economic, social and political globalizations are aggregated to the KOF Globalization Index using
equal weights. The complete KOF Globalization Index is computed as the normal of the de facto and
the de jure KOF Globalization Index. Once the weights were determined, the aggregation consisted of
adding up individual weighted variables instead of using the aggregated lower-level indices. This has
the advantage that variables enter the higher levels of the index even if the value of a sub-index is
not reported due to missing data. Observations of indices were reported as missing if more than 40%
of the observations of the underlying variables were missing or at least two out of three sub-indices
could not be calculated [28]. The index measures globalization on a scale of 1 to 100. The figures for
the constituent variables are expressed as percentiles. For the purpose of this study, the 2018 KOF
Globalization Index which consists of a ranking for 195 countries for the year 2015 is used.
However, in the construction of this index, not all data were accessible for all nations and all
years. Missing values within a series were imputed using linear interpolation. Missing values at the
beginning or the end of a series were substituted by the closest observation available. Due to their
higher degree of interdependence, for example, with neighboring countries, smaller countries tend to
be placed higher up in this ranking than larger countries. This leaves the most significant national
economies around the world in the mid-range as indicated in Table 2.

Table 2. Top 10 and bottom 10 countries on the basis of the KOF Globalization Index (KOFGI).

Top 10 Bottom 10
Belgium Bhutan
Netherlands Guinea-Bissau
Switzerland Togo
Sweden Chad
Austria Myanmar
Denmark Burundi
France Haiti
United Central African
Kingdom Republic
Germany Eritrea
Finland Lithuania
Sustainability 2020, 12, 3411 5 of 11

3. Sustainability Indices
Sustainable development is a growth parameter that meets requirements of the current time
without negotiating the capability of future generations in meeting their own requirements [29–31].
An evolution has been experienced of the concept of sustainable development over time from the earlier
time where focus was on the environmental dimension to the present understanding that sustainable
development is a process that incorporates economic, environmental, and societal objectives [32,33].
Though sustainable development is a challenging concept, its fundamentals are very clear which
states the maintenance of the integrity of bio physical and natural systems. It ensures that a proper
functioning economy must be present and cultivating or upholding human wellbeing and health is of
utmost importance. Sustainable development requires meeting the basic needs of all and extending to
all the opportunity to fulfill their aspirations for a better life. A world in which poverty is endemic will
always be prone to ecological and other catastrophes. Some authorities argue that basic needs also
include the rights of all to preserve their cultural identity, and their right to not be alienated from their
own society, and their own community [34]. For investigative purposes, in present paper, a perception
is followed that states that sustainable development along with globalization is an idea that can be
operationalized through use of science and technical based criteria and indicators [35].
People have different perceptions of sustainability criteria and for some the basic impression of
sustainability is to mainly focus on the depletion of resources while other consider it as a concept where
sustainability includes contamination, conservation of ecology and its ecological aspects. Some include
traits of the quality of human life or human well-being. For exploring the question of globalization and
its sustainability, we have selected indices that characterize diverse aspects of sustainable development
stated above, as well as an overall sustainable development index [36–38].

3.1. Human Development Index (HDI)

HDI (Human Development Index) was formed to highlight the fact that individuals and their
abilities should be the final criteria for measuring the growth of a country, not economic development
alone. The HDI is a composite measure for assessing achievements in three key areas of human
development: healthy and long life, knowledge accessibility and decent standard of living. The HDI
is the geometric mean of normalized indices for each of the three dimensions. A healthy living is
measured by life expectancy at birth; knowledge is determined by an average of expected and mean
years of schooling and standard of living by the GNI per capita (PPP $). In the current paper, data and
information from the 2018 statistical update has been used [39].

3.2. Environment Sustainability Index (ESI)

The Environment Sustainability Index has been constructed by taking into account four areas
(i) energy consumption, (ii) carbon dioxide emission, (iii) forest area, and (iv) mortality rate attributed to
household and ambient air pollution. Data from UNDP Human Development Report 2018 Dashboard
4: Environment Sustainability for 189 countries, are used to construct the index by ranking countries
based on their performance in the four areas with the most efficient receiving rank one and so on [40].
In the arena of energy ingestion two indicators are used fossil fuel energy utilization which is the
level of entire energy ingestion which originates from non-renewable energy sources which consists of
coal, oil, petroleum, and natural gas products; and sustainable power source usage which is the share
of renewable energy in total final energy consumption. Inexhaustible sources include geothermal,
hydroelectric, sun powered, wind, tides, biomass, and biofuels. As an indicator of carbon dioxide
emission human-generated carbon dioxide releases curtailing from the burning of non-renewable
energy sources, gas spreading and the manufacturing of concrete and carbon dioxide produced by
woodland biomass through exhaustion of timberland areas are included. Nations are graded according
to the releases communicated in tons per capita (based on midyear population) and in kilograms
per unit of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) in 2011 purchasing power parity (PPP) dollars. The third
Sustainability 2020, 12, 3411 6 of 11

dimension takes into account the percentage alteration in the forest area, which is land covering more
than 0.5 hectares with trees taller than 5 meters and a canopy cover of more than 10 percent or trees
able to reach these thresholds in situ. Mortality rate attributed to household and ambient air pollution
considers deaths resulting from exposure to ambient (outdoor) air pollution and household (indoor)
air pollution from solid fuel use for cooking, expressed per 100,000 populations. Encompassing air
contamination is the result of emissions from households, industrial action, car, and trucks. The ranks
across all indicators are aggregated, attaching equal weights to obtain the Environment Sustainability
Index. Lower values of ESI indicate greater efficiency in terms of environmental sustainability.

3.3. Environmental Performance Index (EPI)

EPI (The Environmental Performance Index) focuses on two main environmental goals: (i) reducing
environmental stresses to human health; (ii) endorsing ecosystem vitality and comprehensive natural
resource management. Both of the goals also replicate the policy significances of environmental
specialists around the globe and the international community’s intentions for the adoption of
Goal 7 of the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) for ensuring environmental sustainability.
The two supreme objectives are evaluated through 25 difference performance indicators trialed in six
well-developed policy categories. All of them are then combined for creating to create a final score.
In this paper the 2018 EPI scores have been used [41].

3.4. Red List Index (RLI)

RLI, (Red List Index) is a measure of the aggregate extinction risk across groups of species. RLI is
based on honest changes in the number of species in each group of extinction risk on the International
Union for Conservation of Nature Red List of Threatened Species. The range progresses from 0,
where all species which are categorized as extinct, to 1 for those species categorized as being of least
concern. The Red List Index (RLI) was established to display trends in global extinction risk for species
and deliver a gauge which can be used by governments to trail their development in accomplishing
targets that decreases biodiversity loss. In the present paper, statistics of 2018 have been used [42–45].

3.5. Sustainable Development Goal Index (SDGI)

The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, including the Sustainable Development Goals
(SDGs) was adopted in 2015. The 17 new Sustainable Development Goals, also known as the
Global Goals, aim to end poverty, hunger and inequality, take action on climate change and the
environment, improve access to health and education, build strong institutions and partnerships,
and more. Compared to the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs), the SDGs are applicable to all
193 UN Member States and therefore both to developing and developed countries alike. In order to
assist countries in measuring their SDG baselines and to measure future progress, the Bertelsmann
Stiftung and the Sustainable Development Solutions Network (SDSN) jointly released the first SDG
Index and Dashboards in July 2016. This report aims to achieve four main objectives:

1. Establishing Sustainable development goals in the form of a valuable, working device for
strategic action.
2. Supporting national debates on prioritizing basis and formulate SDGs with application plans.
3. Accompanying efforts to develop of a robust SDG checking structure by the UN Statistical Commission.
4. Identifying SDG data gaps, requirements for investments in arithmetical capability and research,
and new forms of data.

The global SDG Index score and scores by goal can be interpreted as the percentage of achievement.
The difference between 100 and countries’ scores is therefore the distance in percentage that needs to
be completed to achieve the SDGs and other goals. Sweden’s overall Index score (85) suggest that
the country is on average 85% of the way to the best possible outcome across the 17 SDGs. For all
countries, the same basket of indicators (variables) is used to produce comparable scores and rankings.
Sustainability 2020, 12, 3411 7 of 11

The differences in rankings may be due to small differences in the aggregate score which must be noted.
The SDG Index score indicates position of a country between the worst (0) and the best or target (100)
outcomes. Data from the 2018 Global SDG Index and Dashboards Report is used in this paper [46,47].

4. Methods and Results

For indicating the crude relationship between sustainability indices and the KOFGI, the Spearman
correlation and linear regression between each of the sustainability indices and the KOFGI are used
and the results for the correlation are shown below in Table 3. Cross-section data on 179 countries for
the year 2015 has been used for this purpose.

Table 3. Spearman‘s rho correlations for KOFGI and the sustainability indices.

HDI ESI EPI RLI SDGI

KOFGI 0.8285 ** −0.1107 −0.4817 ** 0.1587 * 0.7842 **
KOFGI domains
Economical 0.7028 ** −0.1202 −0.4429 ** 0.1635 * 0.6310 **
Social 0.9107 ** −0.2472 ** −0.4787 ** 0.1169 0.8132 **
Political 0.4766 ** 0.0798 −0.3549 ** 0.1430 0.5471 **
* Significant at 0.05 level; ** Significant at 0.01 level.

In Tables 4 and 5, linear regression results of the sustainability indices on the KOFGI are presented.
We use correlation and regression analysis to develop some evidence that may hint at causality,
acknowledging that correlation (and regression) cannot prove causality in such complex issue such
as globalization.

Table 4. Linear regression coefficients for KOFGI and the sustainability indices

HDI ESI EPI RLI SDGI

constant 0.32 ** 80.29 ** 36.38 ** 0.82 ** 42.23 **
Coefficient β 0.01 ** 0.11 0.30 ** 0.00 0.35 **
R-square 0.6020 0.0088 0.2196 0.0088 0.5365
* Significant at 0.05 level; ** Significant at 0.01 level.

Table 5. The T-test (means between low and high globalized countries).

HDI ESI EPI RLI SDGI

t −14.04 ** −2.36 * −5.30 ** −0.66 −13.04 **
* Significant at 0.05 level; ** Significant at 0.01 level.

From Table 3 it can be seen that, except ESI, there is correlation between all sustainability indices
and KOFGI. The HDI and the Sustainable Development Goal Index shows positive correlation with
KOF Globalization Index with Spearman ranked correlation values of 0.8285 and 0.7842, respectively.
There is a significantly negative correlation between Environmental Performance Index and KOFGI
with a Spearman ranked correlation of −0.4817. A substantial low affirmative correlation exists between
KOFGI and Red List Index (rs = 0.1587). In addition there is no significant correlation between KOFGI
and the Environment Sustainability Index (rs = −0.11).
As far as, globalization’s individual domains are concerned, Table 3 shows that economic and social
areas of globalization are the primary drivers of correlations. Except for ESI, economic globalization
is significantly correlated with all sustainability indices. Concerning ESI and RLI, no significant
correlation was found between them and political domain of globalization. Similarly, between RLI and
the social domain, no significant correlation was identified.
Regression analysis outcomes are shown in Table 4. Results depict that, an increase in globalization
results in higher values of HDI and SDGI with R-squared values of 0.60 and 0.54, respectively.
Sustainability 2020, 12, 3411 8 of 11

The R-square between KOFGI and EPI is smaller, while there is no relationship between KOFGI and
ESI and between KOFGI and RLI.
For comparing the variance in score of sustainability indices among more and less globalized
nations, they (nations) are divided into two sub-samples in accordance to their overall KOFGI rating.
Mean KOFGI mark (= 67.40) is considered to differentiate among more and less globalized nations.
Two-sample t-test is applied for exploring null hypothesis. This states that no significant difference is
found between the mean value of more and less globalized nations regarding sustainability indices
(Table 5). This can be explained as beneath:

H0: HDI more globalized nations = HDI less globalized countries reject
H0: ESI more globalized nations = ESI less globalized countries reject
H0: EPI more globalized nations = EPI less globalized countries reject
H0: RLI more globalized nations = RLI less globalized countries accept
H0: SDGI more globalized nations = SDGI less globalized countries reject

Observing the KOFGI 2018 statistics, it is seen that the more and more globalized nations
(in comparison to less globalized nations) are doing better in areas of Human Development and
Environment Performance and have significantly higher values of SDGI indicating better performance
across all 17 Sustainable Development Goals. There are no significant differences between higher and
lower globalized nations in relation to the Red List Index. In terms of ESI, the performance of more
globalized countries is slightly worse, which can be attributed to high energy consumption and carbon
dioxide emissions in those countries.

5. Discussion
Observing the sustainability indices, some differences can be noticed. Some of the sustainability
indices addressing a specific issue (like human development (HDI), environmental performance
(EPI), show the strong relationship with the level of globalization while others (Red List Index (RLI),
Environment Sustainability Index (ESI) do not. The HDI (Human Development Index) is the average
achievement of a nation in three different areas. This includes a healthy and long life, knowledge
access and a decent standard of living. [39] Achievements in human development are correlated
with—and, by construction, partly reflect—levels of income per capita and education. Economic and
social globalizations are therefore important drivers of the HDI. In addition, globalization is found to
have significant positive effect on economic growth which can positively affect HDI through increasing
per capita income. [27,28]
Similar to the Human Development index, there is correlation between per capita GDP with EPI’s
higher performance. This might have given rise to a lower value R-square. Specifically, overall scores
of EPI are greater in nations which have $10,000 or higher per capita GDP. The degree of freedom
of association; expression and free media have been combined in the EPI showing a constructive
correlation in the environmental performance. Similarly, the comprehensive measurement of the
comparative weaknesses and strengths of major and emerging national economies shows a strong
positive association with environmental performance [41]. The process of globalization has an influence
over these underlying EPI indicators.
Red List Index is the degree of the collective extinction risk across groups of different kinds
targeting areas of biodiversity loss. The lack of (or low) relationship between the level of globalization
and the biodiversity potential may in part be due to the complexity of the globalization biodiversity
level, which is highly spatially explicit (and hence, difficult to compare on a county by country basis).
ESI does not have any substantial relation to globalization; this result is likely due to the fact that
both positive and negative implications of globalization are reflected in the sub-indicators of ESI. Still,
there is some relationship between ESI and the social domain of globalization which can be attributed
to the possibility that increasing citizen’s quality of life through education and awareness might create
Sustainability 2020, 12, 3411 9 of 11

a better environment for tackling household pollution and create greater reliance on renewable energy
sources as compared to fossil fuels.
The Sustainable Development Goal Index, which is constructed by taking all the 17 SDGs into
consideration and which is the most comprehensive measure into of sustainability, shows a strong and
positive relationship with the level of globalization. This result seems to imply that globalization has
a favorable implication on sustainability overall.
It is necessary to take into account that all indices have component indicators and information
on the country level, without an explicit spatial dimension. Globalization interacts with sustainable
development at levels that make computation challenging like trans-border environmental concerns,
cultural alterations and a so-called “global awareness”. For example, the data do not show us that the
most globalized countries might have a higher HDI or EPI because they have exported their pollution
or because the costs of the goods and services they enjoy (and which contribute to their lifestyles) are
borne by people and environments in other parts of the world.

6. Conclusion
In this paper we have measured the impact of the recent process of globalization on the
sustainability of world development in the light of various sustainability indices. Observing the results,
globalization can be characterized as both more complicated and more surprising than was anticipated.
One clear lesson can be learned from the many global assessments that have been produced over
the past decades: dogmatic predictions regarding the earth‘s future are unreliable, ill-founded and
misleading, and can be politically counterproductive. So, this analysis is beset with the uncertainties
and assumption that apply to global statistical indicator analysis. Moreover, looking at a more detailed
(variable) level, the analysis becomes somewhat more complex. If consumerism and global economic
processes do have polluting side-effects, it needs to be asked which direction these dynamics need to
take for a sustainable future.
Though the prevailing view is that globalization has mostly negative impacts, especially in the case
of developing nations, it is probably too early to pass such judgment and globalization may not be as
“evil” a phenomenon as it is deemed to be. What is clear is that the increasing complexity of our global
society means that sustainable development cannot be addressed from a single perspective, country or
scientific discipline. Planning for sustainable development in the context of globalization is far more
intricate and complex compared to most problems that have to been dealt with in the past and requires
global, cross-country policies and the setting up of an international initiative to coordinate such policies.

Author Contributions: S.T. and Z.W. was responsible of the methodology, G.Y. was responsible for data analysis,
and W.T. was responsible for the original draft preparation; finally S.T. and W.T. reviewed and edited the paper.
All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: We would like to thank National Philosophy and Social Sciences Funding, No.19BJY153 as well as
Hei Longjiang Provincial Philosophy and Social Sciences Funding, No.18JYB45 & No. 18JYH753 for providing
financial support for this work.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References
1. Caro, J.M.B.; Golpe, A.A.; Iglesias, J.; Vides, J.C. A new way of measuring the WTI–Brent spread. Globalization,
shock persistence and common trends. Energy Econ. 2020, 85, 104546. [CrossRef]
2. Jovanović, M.N. Is globalisation taking us for a ride? J. Econ. Integr. 2010, 25, 501–549. [CrossRef]
3. O’Rourke, K.H. Economic history and contemporary challenges to globalization. J. Econ. Hist. 2019, 79,
356–382. [CrossRef]
4. Van der Meulen Rodgers, Y.; Bebbington, A.; Boone, C.; Dell’Angelo, J.; Platteau, J.P.; Agrawal, A. Experimental
approaches in development and poverty alleviation. World Dev. 2020, 127, 104807. [CrossRef]
Sustainability 2020, 12, 3411 10 of 11

5. Geels, F.W. Micro-foundations of the multi-level perspective on socio-technical transitions: Developing

a multi-dimensional model of agency through crossovers between social constructivism, evolutionary
economics and neo-institutional theory. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 2020, 152, 119894. [CrossRef]
6. Thurner, S.; Klimek, P.; Hanel, R. Schumpeterian economic dynamics as a quantifiable model of evolution.
New J. Phys. 2010, 12, 075029. [CrossRef]
7. Lincoln, A.; Adedoyin, O.; Croad, J. Goal 16 of the UN Sustainable Development Agenda and Its Implications for
Effective Governance and Sustainability in the Nigerian Banking; Springer: Berlin, Germany, 2020.
8. Nepal, R.; Al Irsyad, M.I.; Nepal, S.K. Tourist arrivals, energy consumption and pollutant emissions in
a developing economy–implications for sustainable tourism. Tour. Manag. 2019, 72, 145–154. [CrossRef]
9. Sarker, A.H.; Bornman, J.F.; Marinova, D. A Framework for Integrating Agriculture in Urban Sustainability
in Australia. Urban Sci. 2019, 3, 50. [CrossRef]
10. Antonucci, L.; Varriale, S. Unequal Europe, unequal Brexit: How intra-European inequalities shape the
unfolding and framing of Brexit. Curr. Sociol. 2020, 68, 41–59. [CrossRef]
11. Schwartz, H.M. States Versus Markets: Understanding the Global Economy; Macmillan International Higher
Education: London, UK, 2019.
12. Wadley, D. Population, Globalization, the Market and the Environment. In The City of Grace; Palgrave
Macmillan: Singapore, 2020; pp. 1–12.
13. Stiglitz, J.E.; Ocampo, J.A.; Spiegel, S.; Ffrench-Davis, R.; Nayyar, D. Stability with Growth: Macroeconomics,
Liberalization and Development; Oxford University Press on Demand: Oxford, UK, 2006.
14. Belk, R. The future of globalization: A comment. Int. Mark. Rev. 2019, 36, 545–547. [CrossRef]
15. Estrada, M.A.R.; Park, D.; Khan, A.; Tahir, M. Is terrorism, poverty, and refugees the dark side of globalization?
Qual. Quant. 2019, 53, 1823–1835. [CrossRef]
16. Selwyn, B. Poverty chains and global capitalism. Compet. Chang. 2019, 23, 71–97. [CrossRef]
17. Ushakov, D.; Chich-Jen, S. Global Economy Urbanization and Urban Economies Globalization: Forms,
Factors, Results. In Migration and Urbanization: Local Solutions for Global Economic Challenges; IGI Global:
Hershey, PA, USA, 2020; pp. 200–218.
18. Ercan, M.A. Regeneration, Heritage and Sustainable Communities in Turkey: Challenges, Complexities and Potentials;
Routledge: London, UK, 2019.
19. Ge, Y.; Zhang, K.; Yang, X. A 110-year pollen record of land use and land cover changes in an anthropogenic
watershed landscape, eastern China: Understanding past human-environment interactions. Sci. Total Environ.
2019, 650, 2906–2918. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
20. Akinrinola, A.A.; Adebayo, S.B.; Onakpoya, L.U.; Nwaozuru, U.C. Toward Culturally-Inclusive Educational
Technology in a Globalized World. In The Roles of Technology and Globalization in Educational Transformation;
IGI Global: Hershey, PA, USA, 2020; pp. 177–194.
21. Dreher, A.; Gaston, N.; Martens, P. Measuring Globalization: Gauging Its Consequences; Springer: New York,
NY, USA, 2008; pp. 173–178.
22. Tisdell Clement, A. Will Bangladesh’s Economic Growth Solve its Environmental Problems? Economics, Ecology and
Environment Working Papers 48740; University of Queensland, School of Economics: Queensland, Australia, 2002.
23. Brand, U.; Görg, C.; Wissen, M. Overcoming neoliberal globalization: Social-ecological transformation from
a Polanyian perspective and beyond. Globalizations 2020, 17, 161–176. [CrossRef]
24. Jiang, Y.; Yuan, X. Environmentally Sustainable Industrial Development in China; Routledge: London, UK, 2020.
25. Sano, H.O. How Can a Human Rights-Based Approach Contribute to Poverty Reduction? The Relevance of
Human Rights to Sustainable Development Goal One. In Sustainable Development Goals and Human Rights;
Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2020; pp. 11–27.
26. Goel, R.K.; Ram, R.; Schneider, F.; Potempa, A. International movements of money and men: Impact on the
informal economy. J. Econ. Financ. 2020, 44, 179–197. [CrossRef]
27. Gygli, S.; Haelg, F.; Potrafke, N.; Sturm, J.E. The KOF globalisation index–revisited. Rev. Int. Organ. 2019, 14,
543–574. [CrossRef]
28. Rahman, M.M. Environmental degradation: The role of electricity consumption, economic growth and
globalisation. J. Environ. Manag. 2020, 253, 109742. [CrossRef]
29. Robins, N.; Trisoglio, A. Restructuring industry for sustainable development. In Policies for a Small Planet;
Routledge: Abingdon-on-Thames, UK, 2019; pp. 157–194.
Sustainability 2020, 12, 3411 11 of 11

30. Setiawan, A.R.; Velasufah, W. Islamic Perspective Toward Education for Sustainable Development (ESD).
2019. Available online: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/336121043_Islamic_Perspective_Toward_
Education_for_Sustainable_Development_ESD (accessed on 10 April 2020).
31. Tamang, J.P.; Cotter, P.D.; Endo, A.; Han, N.S.; Kort, R.; Liu, S.Q.; Mayo, B.; Westerik, N.; Hutkins, R. Fermented
foods in a global age: East meets West. Compr. Rev. Food Sci. Food Saf. 2020, 19, 184–217. [CrossRef]
32. Nhamo, G.; Mukonza, C. Opportunities for women in the green economy and environmental sectors.
In Sustainable Development; Wiley Online Library: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2020.
33. Rani, W.N.M.W.M.; Kamarudin, K.H.; Razak, K.A.; Asmawi, Z.M. Climate Change Adaptation and Disaster
Risk Reduction in Urban Development Plans for Resilient Cities. In IOP Conference Series: Earth and
Environmental Science; IOP Publishing: Bristol, UK, 2020; Volume 409, No. 1; p. 012024.
34. World Commission on Environment and Development, Our Common Future; Oxford University Press:
Oxford, UK, 1987.
35. Fu, J.; Ng, A.W. Sustainable Energy and Green Finance for a Low-Carbon Economy; Springer: Berlin, Germany, 2020.
36. Bilgili, F.; Ulucak, R.; Koçak, E.; İlkay, S.Ç. Does globalization matter for environmental sustainability?
Empirical investigation for Turkey by Markov regime switching models. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2019, 27,
1087–1100. [CrossRef]
37. Parnell, S. Globalization and sustainable development: At the urban crossroad. Eur. J. Dev. Res. 2018, 30,
169–171. [CrossRef]
38. Yay, G.G.; Aksoy, T. Globalization and the welfare state. Qual. Quant. 2018, 52, 1015–1040. [CrossRef]
39. Human Development Indices: A Statistical Update 2018; United Nations Development Programme (UNDP):
New York, NY, USA, 2018.
40. Human Development Report Dashboard 4: Environmental Sustainability; United Nations Development Programme
(UNDP): New York, NY, USA, 2018.
41. Wendling, Z.A.; Emerson, J.W.; Esty, D.C.; Levy, M.A.; De Sherbinin, A. Environmental performance index.
In Yale Center for Environmental Law & Policy; Yale University: New Haven, CT, USA, 2018.
42. IUCN. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2019-2. Available online: http://www.iucnredlist.org
(accessed on 10 April 2019).
43. Agbedahin, A.V. Sustainable development, Education for Sustainable Development, and the 2030 Agenda
for Sustainable Development: Emergence, efficacy, eminence, and future. Sustain. Dev. 2019, 27, 669–680.
[CrossRef]
44. Nerini, F.F.; Sovacool, B.; Hughes, N.; Cozzi, L.; Cosgrave, E.; Howells, M.; Tavoni, M.; Tomei, J.; Zerriffi, H.;
Milligan, B. Connecting climate action with other sustainable development goals. Nat. Sustain. 2019, 2,
674–680. [CrossRef]
45. Salvia, A.L.; Leal Filho, W.; Brandli, L.L.; Griebeler, J.S. Assessing research trends related to Sustainable
Development Goals: Local and global issues. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 208, 841–849. [CrossRef]
46. Scholz, I. Reflecting on the Right to Development from the Perspective of Global Environmental Change and
the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. In Sustainable Development Goals and Human Rights; Springer:
Cham, Switzerland, 2020; pp. 191–206.
47. Sachs, J.; Schmidt-Traub, G.; Kroll, C.; Lafortune, G.; Fuller, G. Sustainable Development Report 2019;
Bertelsmann Stiftung and Sustainable Development Solutions Network (SDSN): New York, NY, USA, 2019.

© 2020 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
(CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).