Energy Reports 10 (2023) 1765–1784

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Energy Reports
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/egyr

Research paper

The role of national culture in renewable energy consumption: Global

evidence
∗
Md Abdullah Omar a,b , , Muhammad Hasanujzaman b
a
Department of Economics, University of Otago, PO Box 56, Dunedin 9054, New Zealand
b
Bangladesh Bank (the Central Bank of Bangladesh), Head Office, Motijheel C/A, Dhaka 1000, Bangladesh

article info a b s t r a c t

Article history: This study examines the relationship between Hofstede’s six cultural dimensions and renewable energy
Received 8 May 2023 consumption, considering global evidence from 99 countries using a panel data framework for the
Received in revised form 28 July 2023 period covering 1991–2018. Employing a pooled ordinary least square model and Lewbel two-stage
Accepted 15 August 2023
least squares technique, we find that the power distance index, uncertainty avoidance index, mas-
Available online xxxx
culinity index, and long-term orientation index negatively influence renewable energy consumption. In
JEL classification: contrast, the indulgence index has a positive impact on renewable energy consumption. Moreover, we
A13 find that the impact of the individualism index on renewable energy consumption is mixed. A battery
O13 of alternative econometric techniques, including the Driscoll–Kraay estimator, ensures the robustness
Q28 of the results. Finally, the empirical evidence suggests policy reforms and global initiatives to integrate
Q42
cultural traits into national strategies for renewable energy consumption, in order to achieve the
Q55
sustainable development goals.
Z10
© 2023 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND
Keywords: license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
National culture
Cultural dimensions
Renewable energy consumption
Sustainable development
Panel regression analysis

1. Introduction
The unanimous designation by 193 member states of the
United Nations (UN) in 2015 to achieve sustainable develop-
ment by 2030, also known as the Sustainable Development Goals
(SDGs), signifies the importance of today’s action for the better-
ment of the future. SDG’s Goal 7, specifically, calls for ensuring
access to affordable, reliable, sustainable, and modern energy for
all. Even though switching to renewable energies is much more
critical for sustainability rather than just transitioning to a low-
carbon economy, the adoption of renewables is still relatively
slow (Claudy et al., 2013; IEA, 2021). Fig. 1 depicts the spatial
distribution of renewable energy consumption (% of total final
energy consumption) during the years 1995, 2006, and 2018
across a global sample of 99 countries. The data demonstrate
very little shifts in renewable energy consumption in different
countries over the reporting periods. The BP (British Petroleum)
Statistical Review of World Energy (2020) reports that fossil fuels,
∗ Corresponding author at: Bangladesh Bank (the Central Bank of Bangladesh),
Head Office, Motijheel C/A, Dhaka 1000, Bangladesh.
E-mail addresses: omarcrab@gmail.com (M.A. Omar),
zamanmania@yahoo.com (M. Hasanujzaman).
including crude oil, coal, and natural gas, account for about three
quarters of total primary energy consumption worldwide. Hence,
scientists and climate policymakers promote the consumption of
renewable energy to tackle the negative consequences associated
with the emissions from non-renewable energy use, such as envi-
ronmental degradation and various undesirable health outcomes
(Bhattacharya et al., 2017; Duscha et al., 2016; Thapar et al.,
2017).
The study of culture as a determinant of economic phenomena
was not predominant until the eve of the 21st century, given
its breadth and difficulties in designing testable and refutable
hypotheses (Guiso et al., 2006). Noble Laureate Douglass North
(North, 2005) pioneered recognizing the term ‘‘culture’’ as an eco-
nomic outcome and understanding its significance in economics
at this stage. Later, the UN acknowledges that culture directly in-
fluences development, and SDGs target 4.7, 11.4, and 12.b specif-
ically mention the role of culture in sustainable development
(Aririguzoh, 2022).
The primary aim of this article is to shed light on the role
of national culture in explaining renewable energy consumption.
In that connection, this study examines the individual hypoth-
esis set for different dimensions of culture by Hofstede (2021),

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egyr.2023.08.033
2352-4847/© 2023 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-
nc-nd/4.0/).
M.A. Omar and M. Hasanujzaman Energy Reports 10 (2023) 1765–1784

Fig. 1. Map of renewable energy consumption in selected years.

Source: World Development Indicators.

including power distance, uncertainty avoidance, individualism
vs. collectivism, masculinity vs. femininity, long- vs. short-term
orientation, and indulgence vs. restraint. The motivation behind
using these cultural dimensions in our study is their distinctiveness
1766
in terms of ‘‘clarity, parsimony, and resonance’’ (Kirkman et al.,
2006; Smith et al., 2002; Tang and Koveos, 2008).
The empirical findings from our study of 99 sample coun-
tries over the 1991–2018 period are novel and in line with our
M.A. Omar and M. Hasanujzaman
hypothesis regarding the potential effect of national culture on
renewable energy consumption. The results show a negative asso-
ciation between the power distance index, uncertainty avoidance
index, masculinity index, long-term orientation index, and re-
newable energy consumption. Furthermore, while the indulgence
index positively affects renewable energy consumption among
different countries, we find mixed results about the impact of the
individualism index.
This article contributes to the existing literature in a number
of ways. As far as we are aware, this is the first study that
examines the relationship between different dimensions of na-
tional culture and renewable energy consumption by considering
available global evidence. Understanding this relationship in a
broader perspective is critical given the complementary nature of
attaining clean energy deployment goals as indicated in SDGs, and
the economic and social role of culture—which is recognized as
a causal agent of sustainability (Aririguzoh, 2022). Our study also
suggests that national culture has a vital role in explaining renew-
able energy consumption in addition to other variables, such as
the gross domestic product, the unemployment rate, and research
and development expenditure (Pelau and Pop, 2018; Przychodzen
and Przychodzen, 2020; Zhao and Luo, 2017). Second, we use
three distinct sources of renewable energy consumption data,
which provides the scope to see the relationships from different
perspectives and check the robustness of the results. Moreover,
we employ an endogeneity-corrected model besides the basic
model that makes our findings more useful for policymakers’
consideration. We have also utilized the mixed effect model, the
Driscoll–Kraay estimator, and a feasible generalized least squares
(FGLS) estimator for further robustness checks. Third, we empha-
size that our study examines data for an extended period. For our
case, we use the data ranges from the year 1991 to the year 2018.
In this way, the time series is more recent, and the sample period
coverage is more extended than in similar region-focused studies,
such as Pelau and Pop (2018).
The structure of the remainder of the paper is as follows.
Section 2 reviews the relevant literature on the conceptual issues
of national culture and its relationship with clean/renewable
energy consumption. Section 3 provides a description of the data
and variables. Section 4 reveals the empirical models used in the
estimation. Section 5 reports and discusses the empirical results,
and Section 6 concludes and includes policy implications.
2. Literature review
2.1. Concepts of national culture
Although it is evident that national culture is a popular and
complex multi-faceted construct, there is an unresolved debate
on its definition (Taras et al., 2009; Tian et al., 2018). The con-
cept of national culture has been explored in diverse fields of
anthropology, sociology, psychology, and economics for a long
time, and thus the nature of definitions is considerably larger than
any specific field of study can offer. It has also been recognized
that national culture is a group phenomenon and is distinctively
different from individual temporal states.
In a simplistic framework, many researchers have measured
national culture merely by nationality or citizenship (Baum et al.,
1993; Offermann and Hellmann, 1997; Scheinberg and MacMil-
lan, 1988; Shane et al., 1991). Traditionally, the majority of the
initial social science studies focused mainly on qualitative ele-
ments of national culture. The outer layers of national culture, for
example languages, artifacts, and custom, have been emphasized
in the domain of anthropology and archaeology. Cross-cultural
issues, such as description of protocols, traditions, and the means
of expanding cross-border businesses have become salient to
sociology, psychology, and management (Taras et al., 2009).
1767
Energy Reports 10 (2023) 1765–1784
At the outset of the quantitative approaches of measuring na-
tional culture, attention predominantly diverted to cultural values
and attitudes that apparently guide human actions. For example,
Hofstede (2001) and Milton (1997) argue that national culture
comprises common values, beliefs, wisdom, and targets that gov-
ern human behavior. Taras et al. (2009) conceptualize culture as
a set of parameters with shared values, thinking, reacting, and
practices of a group that are distinct from others and are retained
over a longer time horizon. Taking a slightly different way, Leung
and Bond (2004) and Leung et al. (2002) explore culture beyond
values and describe it with regard to social axioms or general
beliefs about cynicism, social intricacy, spirituality, rewards, and
fate control.
Therefore, it is legitimate to admit that a particular numeric
index is not enough to comprehensively describe national cul-
ture. To operationalize the concept of national culture, Hofstede
(1980, 2001) created four dimensions of national culture con-
sisting of power distance, uncertainty avoidance, individualism-
collectivism, and masculinity-femininity based on the cultural
attitudes held by people. Later, Hofstede et al. (2010) include two
additional cultural dimensions – long- vs. short-term orientation
and indulgence vs. restraint – using the World Values Surveys.
Hofstede’s six dimensions of national culture are the most influ-
ential in business and economics empirical research due to the
limited availability of alternatives, convenience, and popularity
(Tang and Koveos, 2008; Taras et al., 2009).
2.2. National culture and clean/renewable energy consumption
From time to time, authors study the correlation between
culture and different social and economic indicators, such as
corporate cash holdings, timing of capital structure choices, in-
come, nuclear energy acceptance, emissions, energy poverty, and
the green economy and find results that have profound policy
implications (Arosa et al., 2014; Chaudhry and Shafiullah, 2021;
Chen et al., 2015; Disli et al., 2016; Lee et al., 2022; Xia et al.,
2019). However, there is a dearth of comprehensive academic
literature that studies the effect of culture on the consumption
of renewable energy. Amongst the few, Pelau and Pop (2018)
analyze the relationship between national culture and renewable
energy consumption, and Ang et al. (2020) study the role of
the individualism dimension of culture on the adoption of clean
energy technology focusing on the European region and sug-
gest consideration of cultural characteristics in devising national
action plans. However, there is no comprehensive study that
analyzes the issue in the global context and considers the six di-
mensions of Hofstede’s national culture. We detail those cultural
dimensions below and review previous studies investigating their
effect on clean or renewable energy consumption.
The Power distance index measures the degree of hierarchy
and focus of power and authority in the society (Hofstede et al.,
2010; House et al., 2002). Societies with a high power distance
exhibit the existence of more autocratic positions and central-
ization of power with considerable dependence of subordinates
on their superiors (Mihet, 2013; Rinne et al., 2012). This suggests
that renewable energy consumption is not encouraged in these
cultures. For example, Pelau and Pop (2018) explore that power
distance has a negative impact on renewable energy consumption
in several European countries. Alternatively, societies with a low
power distance encourage democratic forms of participation, per-
sonal responsibility, and autonomy. This favors open discussions
and active support programs on environmentally sustainable ac-
tivities and social issues (Ahlborg et al., 2015; Cox et al., 2011;
Dangelico et al., 2020; Gupta and McIver, 2016; Husted, 2005;
Park et al., 2007; Peng and Lin, 2009; Sun et al., 2019).
The uncertainty avoidance index represents society’s aversion
to risk posed by natural and human forces (Hofstede, 2001).
M.A. Omar and M. Hasanujzaman
High uncertainty avoidance cultures indicate a high degree of
rigidity of behavior and neophobia while striving to ease such
unpredictability of future incidents through social procedures,
consensus, and bureaucratic actions. This appears in restrain-
ing institutional capability to formulate suitable energy and en-
vironmentally sustainable policies and thereby disfavors con-
sumption of renewable energies (Pelau and Pop, 2018). Con-
versely, a culture with low uncertainty avoidance fosters citizen
empowerment and protest, tends to be more adaptive to risk,
and tackles uncertain circumstances more comfortably in which
practice counts more than principles (Husted, 2005; Nakata and
Sivakumar, 1996; Shortall and Kharrazi, 2017). However, previous
empirical literature showed mixed results, with Dangelico et al.
(2020), Gupta and McIver (2016), Lee et al. (2022), and Onel and
Mukherjee (2014) examining a positive influence of uncertainty
avoidance on environmental sustainability and the green econ-
omy; Vachon (2010) investigating a negative impact; and Cox
et al. (2011), Husted (2005), and Park et al. (2007) reporting
insignificant impacts.
The individualism (vs. collectivism) dimension represents the
relative significance that nations place on individual as against
common interests (Hofstede et al., 2010; Park et al., 2007). In
individualistic cultures, societies bestow high importance to per-
sonal autonomy, people are usually more self-confident and op-
timistic, and individuals tend to downplay risks (Haq et al., 2018;
Herbig and Dunphy, 1998; Van den Steen, 2004; Waarts and
Van Everdingen, 2005). This favors the emergence of environ-
mental interest-group activity and greater organizational capacity
to react to environmental hazards (Husted, 2005; Peng and Lin,
2009; Vachon, 2010). Previous studies demonstrate that indi-
vidualism fosters greater acceptance of nuclear power and re-
newables, development of low-carbon eco-innovations, and in-
vestments in research and development for green technologies
(Ang et al., 2020; Boubakri et al., 2021; Chen et al., 2021; Choi,
2020; Mogha and Williams, 2021; Xia et al., 2019). In contrast,
collectivistic cultures place a high value on groups that take
care of people in exchange for loyalty. Higueras-Castillo et al.
(2019) confirm that collectivism develops stronger eco-friendly
behaviors and attitudes towards the adoption of renewable en-
ergy technologies in individuals in their study based on Spanish,
German, and Mexican households.
The masculinity (vs. femininity) index concerns the degree
to which a culture emphasizes the components of individual
character linked with human gender (Hofstede et al., 2010; Park
et al., 2007). In masculine cultures, societies place more im-
portance on values such as material success, heroism, personal
career, aggressiveness, and achievement. On the contrary, fem-
inine cultures are more tender and concerned with modesty,
trust, cooperation, discretion, solidarity, and quality of life. This
suggest that masculinity causes a fondness for economic growth
over environmental preservation and adoption of clean energy
(Hofstede, 2001; Husted, 2005). Pelau and Pop (2018) state that
masculinity has an inverse relation with renewable energy con-
sumption. Other empirical studies demonstrate that masculinity
negatively influences environmental performance and technolog-
ical alterations towards sustainable development (Brough et al.,
2016; Lee et al., 2022; Lahuerta-Otero and González-Bravo, 2018;
Peng and Lin, 2009; Yasmin and Grundmann, 2020).
The long-term orientation (vs. short-term orientation) index
refers to the temporal tolerance of a society’s people for obtaining
success and outcomes (Hofstede, 1997). Long-term oriented cul-
tures attach greater importance to protracted outlook and incen-
tivize actions such as perseverance, thrift, honesty, adaptability,
accountability, and self-discipline (Arosa et al., 2014; Dangelico
et al., 2020; Hofstede and Minkov, 2010; Rinne et al., 2012).
Accordingly, Halder et al. (2020) and Lee et al. (2022) point
1768
Energy Reports 10 (2023) 1765–1784
out that long-term orientation positively influences sustainable
consumption values and green economy. Moreover, long-term
orientation reflects improved environmental efficiency of a coun-
try related to biodiversity and habitat (Boubakri et al., 2021;
Durach and Wiengarten, 2017; Gupta and McIver, 2016). The
opposite is short-term orientation, which is associated with the
past and present focus, honor for heritage, and accomplishment
of social obligations (Prim et al., 2017; Rinne et al., 2012). In a
business setting, this leads firms to make profits in the short run
by overlooking business management policies related to environ-
mental protection and innovation (Dangelico et al., 2020; Nakata
and Sivakumar, 1996). However, Pelau and Pop (2018) show
that short-term orientation favors renewable energy in ultimate
consumption.
The indulgence (vs. restraint) dimension refers to the extent
to which individuals of a particular culture govern their basic
cravings and impulses (Hofstede et al., 2010). Countries with high
indulgence put a high importance on satisfying desire, spending
money, enjoying life, and having pleasurable activities without
any restrictions, whereas the members of more restrictive soci-
eties have relatively strong control over their urges and suppress
the satisfaction of such gratifications (Hofstede et al., 2010; Short-
all and Kharrazi, 2017). Most of the available literature suggests
that indulgence has a positive impact on innovative environmen-
tal ideas and environment-friendly practices (Dangelico et al.,
2020; Griffith and Rubera, 2014; Gupta and McIver, 2016; Prim
et al., 2017), even though Lee et al. (2022) show a negative
influence on the green economy and Pelau and Pop (2018) find a
nonsignificant effect on renewable energy consumption.
The existing literature striving to quantify the influence of
culture on various socio-economic factors suffers from neglecting
critical aspects that could otherwise facilitate a deeper under-
standing of the general implications and conclusions in the re-
search area. Firstly, the majority of studies rely heavily on simple
linear econometric models. Secondly, existing studies place less
emphasis on addressing endogeneity issues. Thirdly, the stud-
ies often use a limited number of common controls. In con-
trast, we prioritize methodological improvement and utilize a
battery of econometric methods for our empirical analysis. As
mentioned earlier, we employ a diversified set of methods for
robustness checks, including the FGLS method and Driscoll–Kraay
estimator, in addition to separate methods in our main analysis.
Though finding an appropriate instrument is a difficult task, we
endeavor to obtain endogeneity-corrected estimates and have
employed the Lewbel (2012) 2SLS technique with internal in-
struments. Furthermore, we employ a constellation of control
variables and measure our main dependent variable using three
different sources. This provides us with the flexibility to check the
robustness of the main results of our study.
The closely linked literature on the impacts of culture on
environmental sustainability yields some intuition to develop
the theoretical framework and potential channels through which
national culture influences renewable energy consumption. Lau-
rent (2015) and Uzar (2020) argue that economic, socio-political,
and ecological channels are central to sustainable development.
Illingworth (2012) consider cultural and social dimension, such as
ethics and social capital are central to global well-being and sus-
tainable globalization. Churchill et al. (2018), Dincer (2011), and
Leigh (2006) show that ethnic diversity influences sustainable
economic growth through trust and social networks channels.
Ciocirlan and Pettersson (2012), Kellert (1996), and Zahran et al.
(2006) observe that there is a notable cross-cultural differentia-
tion in people’s attitudes and behaviors in terms of conservation
of energy and nature that influence environmental quality. Con-
sidering other elements of culture, Felix et al. (2018) and Kinsley
(1995) claim that trust and religious spirituality has a profound
M.A. Omar and M. Hasanujzaman
effect on the ecological condition of a society. Based on this
discussion, although there may be several mediating factors, we
argue that trust and attitudes are the main channels through
which national culture affects renewable energy consumption,
since national culture upholds societies’ reliance on collective
responsibilities and people’s willingness to maintain ecological
values.
3. Data and variables
3.1. Sources of data
To conduct the analysis, we accumulate 28 years of cross-
country unbalanced annual panel data over the period of 1991–
2018 for a global sample of 99 countries (see Table A.1, Appendix,
for the list of countries). We use different sources to obtain our
data. The data for our dependent variable (renewable energy con-
sumption) are collected from three distinct sources: the World
Bank World Development Indicators (WDI) (2021) database, BP
(2022), and U.S. EIA (2021) dataset. We base Hofstede (2021)
and Hofstede Insights (2021) to collect the data for our main
explanatory variable, national culture. According to Hofstede’s
framework, each dimension is constructed on a scale of 0 to 100
and a higher value of each dimension implies a higher effect of
that cultural dimension. Given the constant nature of national
culture, we consider the scores of individual cultural dimen-
sions as fixed for the totality of the analysis period. The data
for other control variables are collected from the WDI database
and Worldwide Governance Indicators (WGI) database. Note that,
considering the timeline and values of all dependent and inde-
pendent variables confirming the intersection of the availability
of data for all dimensions of Hofstede’s culture indices, we limit
the size of the sample to 99 countries. A detailed description of
variables and their sources is presented in Table 1.
3.2. Hypotheses for the relationship between national culture and
renewable energy consumption
The cultural dimensions model by Hofstede is one the com-
prehensive model that put focus on country’s cultural charac-
teristics (rather than individuals). Based on attitude surveys of
IBM subsidiaries in 40 countries between 1967 and 1973, Hofst-
ede created four dimensions of national culture: power distance,
uncertainty avoidance, individualism vs. collectivism, and mas-
culinity vs. femininity (Hofstede, 1980). The other two cultural
dimensions, long- vs. short-term orientation and indulgence vs.
restraint, were added to the list later based on the World Values
Survey when Hofstede and his team presented the characteristics
for 76 countries (Hofstede et al., 2010). Hofstede’s cultural dimen-
sions allow researchers to conduct empirical studies on the role
of culture and perform comparative cross-country analyses that
may otherwise remain unexplored (Davis and Williamson, 2016;
Kaasa et al., 2014).
We hypothesize the potential association between different
dimensions of Hofstede culture and renewable energy consump-
tion based on the discussion in the literature review section be-
fore empirically testing the hypotheses to understand the actual
relationships. More specifically, the hypotheses are:
Hypothesis 1. Power distance index negatively influences renew-
able energy consumption.
Hypothesis 2. Uncertainty avoidance index negatively influences
renewable energy consumption.
Hypothesis 3. Individualism may have either a positive or nega-
tive influence on renewable energy consumption.
1769
Energy Reports 10 (2023) 1765–1784
Hypothesis 4. Masculinity index negatively influences renewable
energy consumption.
Hypothesis 5. Long-term orientation index positively influences
renewable energy consumption.
Hypothesis 6. Indulgence index positively influences renewable
energy consumption.
3.3. Covariates
We choose a mix of economic, environmental, demographic,
political, and energy variables that have potential implications
for renewable energy consumption. The list of covariates include:
GDP per capita, carbon dioxide emissions, energy use, gross fixed
capital formation, exports and imports of goods and services, total
unemployment, urban population, rule of law, and research and
development expenditure (Abbas et al., 2020; Churchill et al.,
2021; Khezri et al., 2021; Lee et al., 2022; Lin and Zhu, 2019; Lin
et al., 2022; Pelau and Pop, 2018; Przychodzen and Przychodzen,
2020; Qamruzzaman and Jianguo, 2020; Sadorsky, 2009; Uzar,
2020; Wu and Broadstock, 2015). We take natural logarithmic
transformation for the three control variables – GDP per capita,
carbon dioxide emissions, and energy use – to allow for the larger
variations of these variables and a diminishing marginal effect. All
other covariates are in percentage form except the rule of law,
represented as a proxy of the governance index. The selection of
control variables is based on those used in the existing economics
literature. Table 1 shows the description of all control variables.
4. Empirical specification and methods
We employ various methods to conduct the econometric anal-
ysis after designing the research framework for this study (see
Fig. 2). We initiate the analysis by initially examining cross-
sectional dependence and stationarity of the data before applying
empirical estimation. We use a pooled OLS regression model
to estimate our baseline results, where renewable energy con-
sumption is a function of Hofstede’s national cultural dimensions
and other covariates. Formally, the empirical model is written as
follows:
recit = α + β ∗ NCit + γ ∗ Xit + δi + µit (1)
where recit represents the renewable energy consumption for
country i at time t; α is a constant term; NC is Hofstede’s six-
dimensional index of national culture; X is the vector of covari-
ates which includes GDP per capita, carbon dioxide emissions,
energy use, gross fixed capital formation, exports and imports
of goods and services, total unemployment, urban population,
rule of law, and research and development expenditure; β and
γ are parameters; δi represents country fixed effects; and µit
is the error term assumed to be independently and identically
distributed (i.i.d).
Although the model we use for the estimation of baseline
results is useful, it may be less compatible for tackling endo-
geneity issues that arise from reverse causality or measurement
error. One solution to deal with this type of problem associated
with endogenous variables is utilizing the instrumental variable
(IV) approach. However, appropriate instruments are necessary
for the identification of the model when using the IV approach
to manage endogeneity. According to Baum et al. (2012), an
appropriate instrument must satisfy several conditions, including
having a meaningful correlation with the endogenous explana-
tory variables, orthogonality with respect to the error terms, and
exclusion from the model to make the effect on the response
variable indirect. Nevertheless, finding an appropriate instrument
M.A. Omar and M. Hasanujzaman Energy Reports 10 (2023) 1765–1784

Table 1
Description and summary statistics of variables.
Variable Description Obs Mean Std. Dev. Min Max Data Sources

pdi Power distance index 2,576 63.64 21.72 11.00 100.00

uai Uncertainty avoidance index 2,576 68.28 22.11 8.00 100.00 Hofstede (2021)
idv Individualism (vs. collectivism) 2,576 40.27 22.21 6.00 91.00 and Hofstede
index Insights (2021)
mas Masculinity (vs. femininity) 2,576 48.26 18.32 5.00 100.00
index
ltvst Long-term orientation (vs. 2,548 45.23 23.82 0.00 100.00
short-term orientation) index
ivr Indulgence (vs. restraint) index 2,604 44.01 22.04 0.00 97.00
rec1 Renewable energy 2,754 25.50 25.81 0.00 97.74 WDI
consumption (% of total final
energy consumption)
rec2 Renewable energy 1,932 0.46 1.16 0 16.42 BP Statistical
consumption (measured in Review of World
exajoules and comprises of the Energy
sum of hydroelectricity, solar,
wind, and geothermal, biomass
and other renewable
consumption)
rec3 Renewable energy 2,695 0.39 1.19 −0.16 16.38 U.S. Energy
consumption (measured in Information
quadrillion British thermal unit Administration
(quad Btu) and comprises of
the sum of hydroelectricity,
solar, wind, geothermal,
biomass, and other renewable
consumption)
loggdp Log of GDP per capita 2,720 8.90 1.38 5.37 11.57 WDI
(constant 2015 US$)
logco2 Log of carbon dioxide 2,702 1.12 1.32 −3.52 3.42 WDI
emissions (metric tons per
capita)
logenuse Log of energy use (kg of oil 2,240 7.48 0.91 4.78 9.81 WDI
equivalent per capita)
grossfixed Gross fixed capital formation 2,593 22.63 6.25 0.73 57.71 WDI
(% of GDP)
trade Exports and imports of goods 2,622 84.92 59.57 0.02 442.62 WDI
and services (% of GDP)
unemploy Total unemployment (% of total 2,744 8.37 6.10 0.21 37.25 WDI
labor force)
urbanization Urban population (% of total 2,772 63.48 20.68 5.49 100.00 WDI
population)
rule Rule of law (estimate of 1,944 0.27 1.02 −1.85 2.13 WGI
governance ranges from appr.
— 2.5 to 2.5)
rdexp Research and development 1,593 1.09 0.97 0.01 4.94 WDI
expenditure (% of GDP)

of that form is challenging and open to criticism, especially in the
case of cross-country analysis, which impedes conducting empir-
ical research involving IV estimators (Baum et al., 2012; Stock
et al., 2002). To overcome this issue, we use the Lewbel (2012)
2SLS technique that is applicable even for the identification of the
model when external instrumental variables are not available or
weak.
Based on heteroskedasticity in the data, the Lewbel (2012)
2SLS approach follows the solution proposed by Rigobon (2003)
to identify the structural parameters of the model with the en-
dogenous regressor(s) in the absence of traditional identifying
information. The instruments can be either external or inter-
nal, where the external instruments are similar as identified in
2SLS/3SLS, and internal instruments can be determined from the
lagged dependent variables and control variables as generated in
generalized method of moments (GMM) estimation. The Lewbel
(2012) approach combines the traits of GMM and 2SLS to create
an efficient estimator with the compatibility of handling multiple
endogenous and/or mismeasured regressor(s) that also functions
1770
without reliance on satisfying standard exclusion restrictions.
More specifically, we adopt Lewbel’s (2012) heteroskedasticity
identified model incorporating only the internal instruments for
the framework to our initial model in Eq. (1). As a general rule,
the internal instruments are the results of the multiplication of
each included mean-centered exogenous variable that originated
from the residuals of the auxiliary equations. In practice, there
is not much difference between estimates of the Lewbel 2SLS
that do not apply external instruments and those that use ex-
ternal instruments. This mentioned identification methodology is
being extensively used in economics literature by, for example,
Appau et al. (2019), Acheampong et al. (2021), and Chaudhry and
Shafiullah (2021).
5. Empirical results and discussions
We first check for cross-sectional correlations within the panel
data, which may arise from common economic shocks, shared
geographical features, and economic interconnectedness between
M.A. Omar and M. Hasanujzaman
Fig. 2. Analysis framework.
countries. Addressing this spatial dependence is necessary to
avoid potentially invalid statistical inferences in the empirical
results (Sarafidis and Wansbeek, 2012). Therefore, we employ the
CD-test for cross-sectional dependence by Pesaran (2004, 2015)
for the individual variables. The results, reported in Table A.2 of
the Appendix, show that all dependent and control variables are
cross-sectionally dependent.
We consider the relationship between each individual Hof-
stede cultural dimension and renewable energy consumption in
Tables 2–7. As estimating the six cultural dimensions all together
in the corresponding renewable energy consumption equations
is arguable from both methodological and practical standpoints,
we consider each cultural dimension individually to avoid multi-
collinearity and overlapping inferences (Chaudhry and Shafiullah,
2021; Gupta and McIver, 2016). Table 2 presents results for the
effect of power distance index on the three different datasets
of renewable energy consumption (i.e., rec1, rec2, and rec3). In
that case, we use rec1 as our main dataset for renewable en-
ergy consumption, whereas we consider rec2 and rec3 as dif-
ferent alternative datasets for renewable energy consumption to
explore the sensitivity of our results. Columns 1–3 report the
estimated coefficients of the baseline model (i.e., pooled OLS). To
address endogeneity about the use of national culture variables
and further examining the robustness of our results, columns 4–6
report the estimates of the Lewbel 2SLS approach with internally
generated instruments.
The results in Table 2 show that the estimated coefficients
of the power distance index are negative and significant at the
1% level of significance with all measures of renewable energy
consumption in the pooled OLS model (columns 1–3). However,
while the estimated coefficients for the Lewbel 2SLS approach
are all negative (columns 4–6), only the coefficient of our main
measure for renewable energy consumption – rec1 in column 4 –
is highly significant at the 1% level of significance. The significant
and negative coefficient of the power distance index supports our
Hypothesis 1. Specifically, the values of these significant coeffi-
cients are varying between −0.4320 and −0.1327. These results
point to the fact that nations with a higher level of power distance
1771
Energy Reports 10 (2023) 1765–1784
in the culture accept inequality in dissemination of power and ac-
cess to energy resources, which lead to the detrimental effect on
renewable energy consumption. That is, in higher power distance
cultures, social justice or energy justice for the general public can
largely be overlooked in favor of the interests of the power holder,
which tends a lower level of renewables on the electricity grid.
This finding is in line with Lee et al. (2022), Park et al. (2007),
and Pelau and Pop (2018).
The results from Table 3, quite consistently across each col-
umn, entail a negative and statistically significant association
between uncertainty avoidance index and renewable energy con-
sumption at the 1% level of significance, in both pooled OLS
and Lewbel 2SLS models. The values of these coefficients range
between −0.1768 and −0.0246. These results imply that our
Hypothesis 2 is supported by the data. The observed relationship
shows that countries with a high risk avoidance culture have
a low value of renewable energy consumption. This is because
nations those are less comfortable with uncertainty (high un-
certainty avoidance index) prefer to choose existing sources of
energy to meet their demand compared to renewables as the
latter involves uncertain energy output (since renewable energy
production depends on nature) in terms of higher fixed costs
of installation, long-term debt repayment needed to finance this
kind of inherently expensive projects, and continued investments
in research and development (Khezri et al., 2021). Moreover, it
is reasonable to think that any new technology or alternative
sources of energy (i.e., renewables) are to be seen as less reliable.
This finding is in agreement with Pelau and Pop (2018), but
contradicts Cox et al. (2011), Husted (2005), Lee et al. (2022), and
Park et al. (2007).
As highlighted by a reviewer, a numerical example might be
helpful in better understanding the association between cultural
dimensions and renewable energy consumption. Consistent with
our hypothesis and the estimation results, the power distance
index and uncertainty avoidance index negatively influence re-
newable energy consumption. For instance, Egypt, representing a
society with high power distance cultures, has a mean score of
70 on this dimension over the 1991 to 2018 data period, while
M.A. Omar and M. Hasanujzaman Energy Reports 10 (2023) 1765–1784

Table 2
Power distance index and renewable energy consumption.
Variables Dependent variable: renewable energy consumption
Pooled OLS Lewbel 2SLS
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)
rec1 rec2 rec3 rec1 rec2 rec3
pdi −0.3537*** −0.4320*** −0.1327*** −0.2753*** −0.0021 −0.0045
(0.1051) (0.0912) (0.0269) (0.0676) (0.0045) (0.0037)
loggdp 1.4730 0.4876*** 0.3012*** 0.6761 0.0368 −0.0292
(1.0584) (0.1201) (0.0836) (1.0095) (0.0526) (0.0573)
logco2 −26.5394*** 0.4244*** 0.2156 −34.9428*** 0.0398 0.3496***
(1.4734) (0.1577) (0.1478) (1.2615) (0.1177) (0.1074)
logenuse 13.5248*** 0.2928* 0.1764 27.3078*** 0.2163* 0.0228
(1.7714) (0.1618) (0.1523) (1.4467) (0.1150) (0.1210)
grossfixed 0.0045 0.0147*** 0.0110*** 0.0775 0.0397** 0.0245**
(0.0303) (0.0050) (0.0039) (0.0724) (0.0161) (0.0120)
trade 0.0131 −0.0029** −0.0029** −0.0296*** −0.0065*** −0.0071***
(0.0081) (0.0014) (0.0012) (0.0066) (0.0007) (0.0008)
unemploy 0.0081 0.0351*** 0.0231*** 0.0816 −0.0218*** −0.0322***
(0.0359) (0.0085) (0.0061) (0.0688) (0.0040) (0.0043)
urbanization −0.1076 0.0685*** 0.0766*** −0.2195*** −0.0048* −0.0029
(0.0741) (0.0169) (0.0182) (0.0283) (0.0029) (0.0025)
rule 0.1595 0.0433 0.1354* 0.4182 −0.1745* −0.1330*
(0.5691) (0.0760) (0.0806) (0.7706) (0.1058) (0.0756)
rdexp 2.3716*** 0.2013*** 0.2870*** −1.9942*** 0.2249*** 0.2495***
(0.3464) (0.0574) (0.0738) (0.5821) (0.0595) (0.0771)
Constant −21.4804* 22.9760*** 4.0953*** −108.5292*** −1.4687** 0.6848
(12.1299) (5.1116) (1.2086) (11.2967) (0.6549) (0.6837)
Observations 1,030 879 1,023 1,030 879 1,023
R-squared 0.9810 0.9134 0.9193 0.6458 0.1839 0.1786
Country fixed Yes Yes Yes
effects
Kleibergen–Paap 40.911*** 38.036*** 40.965***
rk LM statistic
Cragg–Donald 11.657*** 11.655*** 11.737***
Wald F statistic

For details of the control variables, see Table 1. Robust standard errors are reported in parentheses. The symbols ***, **, and *
indicate statistical significance at the 1%, 5%, and 10% level, respectively.

Table 3
Uncertainty avoidance index and renewable energy consumption.
Variables Dependent variable: renewable energy consumption
Pooled OLS Lewbel 2SLS
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)
rec1 rec2 rec3 rec1 rec2 rec3
uai −0.1768*** −0.1080*** −0.0663*** −0.0924*** −0.0318*** −0.0246***
(0.0525) (0.0228) (0.0135) (0.0268) (0.0043) (0.0042)
loggdp 1.4730 0.4876*** 0.3012*** 2.9748*** 0.0730 0.0177
(1.0584) (0.1201) (0.0836) (0.6808) (0.0652) (0.0517)
logco2 −26.5394*** 0.4244*** 0.2156 −34.8880*** 0.2873** 0.4764***
(1.4734) (0.1577) (0.1478) (1.2528) (0.1451) (0.1194)
logenuse 13.5248*** 0.2928* 0.1764 25.0222*** 0.1666 −0.1104
(1.7714) (0.1618) (0.1523) (1.3546) (0.1315) (0.1264)
grossfixed 0.0045 0.0147*** 0.0110*** −0.0473 0.0243** 0.0117
(0.0303) (0.0050) (0.0039) (0.0667) (0.0116) (0.0100)
trade 0.0131 −0.0029** −0.0029** −0.0531*** −0.0094*** −0.0087***
(0.0081) (0.0014) (0.0012) (0.0055) (0.0009) (0.0009)
unemploy 0.0081 0.0351*** 0.0231*** 0.1410** −0.0113* −0.0244***
(0.0359) (0.0085) (0.0061) (0.0658) (0.0062) (0.0047)
urbanization −0.1076 0.0685*** 0.0766*** −0.1971*** 0.0012 0.0046**
(0.0741) (0.0169) (0.0182) (0.0279) (0.0027) (0.0021)
rule 0.1595 0.0433 0.1354* 2.4103*** −0.4603*** −0.2952***
(0.5691) (0.0760) (0.0806) (0.5600) (0.0906) (0.0775)
rdexp 2.3716*** 0.2013*** 0.2870*** −0.7514 0.1391*** 0.1650***
(0.3464) (0.0574) (0.0738) (0.4661) (0.0499) (0.0581)
Constant −40.9313*** −4.0237*** −3.2026*** −122.1141*** 0.5722 2.5777***
(10.9723) (1.3104) (1.1569) (10.4644) (0.9066) (0.8120)
Observations 1,030 879 1,023 1,030 879 1,023
R-squared 0.9810 0.9134 0.9193 0.6444 0.2482 0.2516
(continued on next page)

1772
M.A. Omar and M. Hasanujzaman Energy Reports 10 (2023) 1765–1784

Table 3 (continued).
Country fixed Yes Yes Yes
effects
Kleibergen–Paap 129.347*** 166.271*** 128.374***
rk LM statistic
Cragg–Donald 48.139*** 52.372*** 46.998***
Wald F statistic

Control variables included here are consistent with those in Table 2 and have the same description in Table 1. Robust standard errors
are reported in parentheses. The symbols ***, **, and * indicate statistical significance at the 1%, 5%, and 10% level, respectively.

Table 4
Individualism (vs. collectivism) index and renewable energy consumption.
Variables Dependent variable: renewable energy consumption
Pooled OLS Lewbel 2SLS
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)
rec1 rec2 rec3 rec1 rec2 rec3
idv 0.9817*** −0.2880*** −0.2431*** −0.1898*** −0.0075* 0.0080*
(0.2372) (0.0608) (0.0584) (0.0588) (0.0039) (0.0048)
loggdp 1.4730 0.4876*** 0.3012*** 3.3678*** 0.0866 −0.0093
(1.0584) (0.1201) (0.0836) (0.7091) (0.0654) (0.0510)
logco2 −26.5394*** 0.4244*** 0.2156 −34.9651*** 0.0600 0.3233***
(1.4734) (0.1577) (0.1478) (1.1902) (0.1176) (0.0992)
logenuse 13.5248*** 0.2928* 0.1764 26.6393*** 0.2360** −0.0611
(1.7714) (0.1618) (0.1523) (1.3099) (0.1156) (0.1235)
grossfixed 0.0045 0.0147*** 0.0110*** −0.0692 0.0364** 0.0260**
(0.0303) (0.0050) (0.0039) (0.0697) (0.0153) (0.0123)
trade 0.0131 −0.0029** −0.0029** −0.0638*** −0.0073*** −0.0068***
(0.0081) (0.0014) (0.0012) (0.0069) (0.0008) (0.0007)
unemploy 0.0081 0.0351*** 0.0231*** 0.1817*** −0.0170*** −0.0346***
(0.0359) (0.0085) (0.0061) (0.0645) (0.0046) (0.0053)
urbanization −0.1076 0.0685*** 0.0766*** −0.2396*** −0.0058** −0.0024
(0.0741) (0.0169) (0.0182) (0.0265) (0.0030) (0.0023)
rule 0.1595 0.0433 0.1354* 5.5291*** −0.0675 −0.1855**
(0.5691) (0.0760) (0.0806) (0.9115) (0.0886) (0.0867)
rdexp 2.3716*** 0.2013*** 0.2870*** −0.5499 0.2237*** 0.2858***
(0.3464) (0.0574) (0.0738) (0.4813) (0.0671) (0.0734)
Constant −72.9437*** −1.5037 −2.9853** −133.8541*** −1.7705** 0.4551
(12.6283) (1.1154) (1.1760) (10.3551) (0.7544) (0.6279)
Observations 1,030 879 1,023 1,030 879 1,023
R-squared 0.9810 0.9134 0.9193 0.6457 0.1672 0.2026
Country fixed Yes Yes Yes
effects
Kleibergen–Paap 55.448*** 53.742*** 53.536***
rk LM statistic
Cragg–Donald 12.250*** 14.416*** 11.863***
Wald F statistic

Control variables included here are consistent with those in Table 2 and have the same description in Table 1. Robust standard errors
are reported in parentheses. The symbols ***, **, and * indicate statistical significance at the 1%, 5%, and 10% level, respectively.

Sweden, a society with low power distance, has a mean score of
31 during the same period. Regarding the uncertainty avoidance
index, Egypt has a mean score of 80, whereas Sweden’s mean
score is 29 from 1991 to 2018. Correspondingly, the average share
of renewable energy consumption in Egypt is about 7% of the
total energy consumption during the reporting period, compared
to approximately 41% for Sweden, which is consistent with our
main results.
For the model with the individualism (vs. collectivism) index
as the explanatory variable in Table 4, the estimated relationship
with renewable energy consumption is found to be mixed. The
estimated coefficients from the pooled OLS model are positive
once – for rec1 in column 1 – and negative in two cases—for
rec2 and rec3 in column 2 and 3 at the 1% level of statistical
significance. In contrast, the estimated Lewbel 2SLS coefficients
are negatively significant at the 1% and 10% level of significance,
respectively – for rec1 and rec2 in column 4 and 5 – and positive
once at the 10% level of significance—for rec3 in column 6. As
expected, high individualistic cultures value individual initiative
and openness to innovations and entrepreneurial behavior, which
is more conducive to the adoption of environment friendly re-
newable energy sources at the societal level than collectivist
1773
cultures. This finding is similar to Ang et al. (2020), Cox et al.
(2011), Husted (2005), Kaminsky (2016), and Lee et al. (2022),
but contradicts Pelau and Pop (2018), who find an insignificant
relationship between these variables. On the contrary, countries
with a highly collectivist cultures exhibit higher inclination to
shape cooperative enterprises within the society and higher levels
of eco-friendly behaviors for renewable energy consumption. This
claim is supported by Higueras-Castillo et al. (2019), but contra-
dicts Park et al. (2007) and Xia et al. (2019). Consequently, we can
conclude that our Hypothesis 3 is confirmed.
The estimated impacts of the masculinity (vs. femininity) in-
dex on renewable energy consumption are presented in Table 5.
The coefficients in both the pooled OLS and Lewbel 2SLS models
are generally negative and statistically significant at the usual 1%
level (column 1, 3, and 4) and 5% level (column 5) of significance—
except for rec3 in column 6, where it is negative but insignificant.
The sole positively significant coefficient is seen for rec2 in col-
umn 2 at the standard significance level. The results suggest that
countries with less masculine cultures have higher levels of re-
newable energy consumption. This is due to the fact that feminine
cultures focus more on social values, such as being attentive to
the needs of others, caring not only for the present but the future
M.A. Omar and M. Hasanujzaman Energy Reports 10 (2023) 1765–1784

Table 5
Masculinity (vs. femininity) index and renewable energy consumption.
Variables Dependent variable: renewable energy consumption
Pooled OLS Lewbel 2SLS
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)
rec1 rec2 rec3 rec1 rec2 rec3
mas −0.1768*** 0.8640*** −0.0663*** −0.2258*** −0.0048** −0.0001
(0.0525) (0.1825) (0.0135) (0.0295) (0.0024) (0.0021)
loggdp 1.4730 0.4876*** 0.3012*** 4.4438*** 0.0922 0.0087
(1.0584) (0.1201) (0.0836) (0.6555) (0.0765) (0.0570)
logco2 −26.5394*** 0.4244*** 0.2156 −30.8995*** 0.1632 0.3448***
(1.4734) (0.1577) (0.1478) (1.2703) (0.1419) (0.1140)
logenuse 13.5248*** 0.2928* 0.1764 19.6498*** 0.0458 −0.0115
(1.7714) (0.1618) (0.1523) (1.4080) (0.1555) (0.1396)
grossfixed 0.0045 0.0147*** 0.0110*** −0.0141 0.0379** 0.0231*
(0.0303) (0.0050) (0.0039) (0.0633) (0.0149) (0.0119)
trade 0.0131 −0.0029** −0.0029** −0.0497*** −0.0067*** −0.0074***
(0.0081) (0.0014) (0.0012) (0.0041) (0.0007) (0.0008)
unemploy 0.0081 0.0351*** 0.0231*** 0.1143* −0.0217*** −0.0316***
(0.0359) (0.0085) (0.0061) (0.0637) (0.0040) (0.0042)
urbanization −0.1076 0.0685*** 0.0766*** −0.2732*** −0.0058* −0.0030
(0.0741) (0.0169) (0.0182) (0.0275) (0.0032) (0.0025)
rule 0.1595 0.0433 0.1354* 2.7944*** −0.1635** −0.0878
(0.5691) (0.0760) (0.0806) (0.4698) (0.0760) (0.0641)
rdexp 2.3716*** 0.2013*** 0.2870*** −0.4236 0.2313*** 0.2770***
(0.3464) (0.0574) (0.0738) (0.4010) (0.0647) (0.0726)
Constant −39.1631*** −41.8233*** −2.5392** −92.8942*** −0.6565 0.3439
(10.9573) (8.7628) (1.0808) (10.5169) (0.7673) (0.6795)
Observations 1,030 879 1,023 1,030 879 1,023
R-squared 0.9810 0.9134 0.9193 0.6617 0.1593 0.1900
Country fixed Yes Yes Yes
effects
Kleibergen–Paap 122.192*** 135.213*** 120.399***
rk LM statistic
Cragg–Donald 53.019*** 57.617*** 51.887***
Wald F statistic

Control variables included here are consistent with those in Table 2 and have the same description in Table 1. Robust standard errors
are reported in parentheses. The symbols ***, **, and * indicate statistical significance at the 1%, 5%, and 10% level, respectively.

as well, and preference for cooperation, which are more favorable
to a high level of environmental responsiveness and therefore a
greater level of renewable energy consumption. In opposition to
this, people in masculine countries favor attaining goals or ac-
quiring material gains, worry more about wealth-building and are
therefore less concerned about unpolluted resources consump-
tion offered by renewable energies. This conforms to the findings
of Burke and Dundas (2015), Deephouse et al. (2016), Hou et al.
(2017), Husted (2005), Lee et al. (2022), Park et al. (2007), Pelau
and Pop (2018), and Yasmin and Grundmann (2020). Therefore,
the results support our Hypothesis 4.
Table 6 presents results for the association between long-term
orientation (vs. short-term orientation) index and renewable en-
ergy consumption. Interestingly, the estimated coefficients have
the opposite signs in general to that expected in both pooled
OLS and Lewbel 2SLS models – apart from rec2 in column 2,
where it is positive – and statistically significant at the 1% level of
significance, except for rec2 in column 5. The positive coefficient
has a value of 0.1401, while the negatively significant coefficients
have values ranging between −1.6683 and −0.0197. Contrary
to our Hypothesis 5, the negative results imply that countries
with a high long-term orientation index are more pragmatic
determining lower renewable energy consumption. This may be
because societies with a low score on this dimension value more
retention of long-standing traditions and norms, keeping stronger
ties to the past while viewing societal changes with skepticism,
and are therefore more willing to preserve a clean environment
through renewable energy consumption. This finding is similar to
Pelau and Pop (2018), but contradicts Gupta and McIver (2016)
and Lee et al. (2022).
Table 7 reports the estimation results between the indul-
gence (vs. restraint) index and renewable energy consumption,
1774
which are all positive and significant at the 1% level of signif-
icance. Consistent with our Hypothesis 6, the findings indicate
that countries with higher levels of tolerance for indulgence
in their cultures, in contrast to restraint, have higher renew-
able energy consumption in all models of the pooled OLS and
Lewbel 2SLS regressions. The values of these coefficients are
estimated between 0.0116 and 1.4463. The interpretation of this
positive effect is intuitive—societies with high indulgence allow
for gratification related to satisfying desires and enjoyment of
life, which often allows more freedom for creativity and ex-
perimenting with innovative outputs, and are therefore more
encouraging towards environment-friendly investments in re-
newable energy. This finding is novel and analogous to that of
studies by Dangelico et al. (2020), Griffith and Rubera (2014),
Prim et al. (2017), who find that indulgence directly increases
environmental performance and degree of innovation. However,
Pelau and Pop (2018) did not find any significant relationships
between the variables.
Turning to the control variables in Tables 2 to 7, GDP per
capita, energy use per capita, gross fixed capital formation, and
research and development expenditure are, in general, positively
associated with renewable energy consumption, whereas trade
openness (exports and imports of goods and services) is nega-
tively related with renewable energy consumption. In addition,
the estimated coefficients of carbon dioxide emissions, unem-
ployment, urbanization, and rule of law are mixed—as both pos-
itive and negative coefficients are statistically significant with
renewable energy consumption. The results for covariates are
therefore generally consistent with the extant literature (e.g.,
Apergis and Payne, 2014; Cadoret and Padovano, 2016; Churchill
et al., 2021; Jebli and Youssef, 2015; Sadorsky, 2009; Sagar and
M.A. Omar and M. Hasanujzaman Energy Reports 10 (2023) 1765–1784

Table 6
Long-term orientation (vs. short-term orientation) index and renewable energy consumption.
Variables Dependent variable: renewable energy consumption
Pooled OLS Lewbel 2SLS
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)
rec1 rec2 rec3 rec1 rec2 rec3
ltvst −1.6683*** 0.1401*** −0.7390*** −0.3486*** −0.0032 −0.0197***
(0.5218) (0.0294) (0.1472) (0.0501) (0.0047) (0.0073)
loggdp 1.4580 0.5101*** 0.3909*** −1.4888 0.0507 −0.1681
(1.0716) (0.1238) (0.0971) (0.9330) (0.0833) (0.1090)
logco2 −26.3459*** 0.4416*** 0.2530* −33.2032*** 0.0424 0.4026***
(1.5557) (0.1600) (0.1475) (1.3832) (0.1193) (0.1390)
logenuse 13.4404*** 0.2742* 0.1206 29.4324*** 0.2133 0.2127
(1.8860) (0.1617) (0.1494) (1.6382) (0.1548) (0.1949)
grossfixed 0.0015 0.0160*** 0.0127*** 0.2885*** 0.0420*** 0.0375***
(0.0307) (0.0052) (0.0042) (0.0909) (0.0151) (0.0128)
trade 0.0121 −0.0028** −0.0034** −0.0117 −0.0063*** −0.0052***
(0.0080) (0.0014) (0.0013) (0.0076) (0.0007) (0.0007)
unemploy 0.0070 0.0359*** 0.0254*** 0.2859*** −0.0220*** −0.0260***
(0.0363) (0.0086) (0.0065) (0.0775) (0.0041) (0.0047)
urbanization −0.1267* 0.0683*** 0.0844*** −0.2400*** −0.0051* −0.0054*
(0.0732) (0.0168) (0.0195) (0.0321) (0.0029) (0.0028)
rule 0.7819 −0.0091 −0.0708 2.6728*** −0.1864** −0.1820**
(0.5916) (0.0773) (0.0745) (0.6119) (0.0757) (0.0755)
rdexp 2.4204*** 0.2069*** 0.2690*** 2.6499*** 0.2612*** 0.4434***
(0.3493) (0.0586) (0.0695) (0.6023) (0.0758) (0.1141)
Constant 50.5890* −15.3703*** 36.2966*** −120.3161*** −1.6173** 0.6008
(29.8309) (3.2833) (7.2343) (10.7545) (0.7870) (0.8469)
Observations 995 866 988 995 866 988
R-squared 0.9797 0.9138 0.9213 0.5514 0.1878 0.1432
Country fixed Yes Yes Yes
effects
Kleibergen–Paap 89.187*** 79.714*** 91.592***
rk LM statistic
Cragg–Donald 24.884*** 19.551*** 25.326***
Wald F statistic

Control variables included here are consistent with those in Table 2 and have the same description in Table 1. Robust standard errors
are reported in parentheses. The symbols ***, **, and * indicate statistical significance at the 1%, 5%, and 10% level, respectively.

Table 7
Indulgence (vs. restraint) index and renewable energy consumption.
Variables Dependent variable: renewable energy consumption
Pooled OLS Lewbel 2SLS
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)
rec1 rec2 rec3 rec1 rec2 rec3
ivr 0.3386*** 1.4463*** 0.1475*** 0.1915*** 0.0118*** 0.0116***
(0.1040) (0.3041) (0.0294) (0.0427) (0.0028) (0.0028)
loggdp 1.5442 0.5027*** 0.3868*** −0.2510 −0.0580 −0.1122*
(1.0602) (0.1215) (0.0958) (0.8101) (0.0626) (0.0652)
logco2 −26.3488*** 0.4472*** 0.2549* −32.6016*** 0.1132 0.4354***
(1.5501) (0.1606) (0.1476) (1.3886) (0.1169) (0.1217)
logenuse 13.3727*** 0.2691* 0.1196 25.4173*** 0.2064* −0.0040
(1.8716) (0.1588) (0.1472) (1.3997) (0.1076) (0.1205)
grossfixed 0.0025 0.0157*** 0.0125*** 0.0852 0.0401*** 0.0259**
(0.0305) (0.0051) (0.0041) (0.0673) (0.0150) (0.0123)
trade 0.0114 −0.0027** −0.0033** −0.0408*** −0.0058*** −0.0068***
(0.0079) (0.0014) (0.0013) (0.0052) (0.0007) (0.0008)
unemploy 0.0142 0.0356*** 0.0254*** 0.2489*** −0.0166*** −0.0270***
(0.0352) (0.0085) (0.0065) (0.0638) (0.0046) (0.0040)
urbanization −0.1315* 0.0687*** 0.0846*** −0.2599*** −0.0098*** −0.0067**
(0.0726) (0.0168) (0.0195) (0.0326) (0.0034) (0.0027)
rule 0.7938 −0.0113 −0.0720 2.6910*** −0.2607*** −0.1862**
(0.5889) (0.0767) (0.0741) (0.5968) (0.0854) (0.0729)
rdexp 2.4469*** 0.2041*** 0.2668*** 1.4545** 0.3488*** 0.3878***
(0.3496) (0.0579) (0.0690) (0.5795) (0.0727) (0.0777)
Constant −56.3526*** −57.9409*** −10.9671*** −117.3639*** −1.1152 0.7747
(12.8000) (12.0883) (2.4289) (10.5190) (0.7403) (0.6413)
Observations 1,010 881 1,003 1,010 881 1,003
R-squared 0.9798 0.9140 0.9215 0.6053 0.2167 0.2151
(continued on next page)

1775
M.A. Omar and M. Hasanujzaman Energy Reports 10 (2023) 1765–1784

Table 7 (continued).
Country fixed Yes Yes Yes
effects
Kleibergen–Paap 84.827*** 78.642*** 86.636***
rk LM statistic
Cragg–Donald 34.683*** 28.925*** 35.699***
Wald F statistic

Control variables included here are consistent with those in Table 2 and have the same description in Table 1. Robust standard errors
are reported in parentheses. The symbols ***, **, and * indicate statistical significance at the 1%, 5%, and 10% level, respectively.

Table 8
Diagnostic tests.
Variables Breusch–Pagan LM test Breusch–Pagan/Cook–Weisberg test
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)
rec1 rec2 rec3 rec1 rec2 rec3
pdi 5423.99*** 4513.83*** 6203.57*** 18.28*** 4157.72*** 5339.74***
uai 5625.19*** 3951.05*** 5696.55*** 18.28*** 4157.72*** 5339.74***
idv 5636.00*** 4396.13*** 6048.18*** 18.28*** 4157.72*** 5339.74***
mas 5578.29*** 4325.32*** 6015.10*** 18.28*** 4157.72*** 5339.74***
ltvst 5306.10*** 4397.64*** 5894.68*** 18.55*** 4006.40*** 4880.91***
ivr 5589.39*** 4354.31*** 5837.19*** 20.91*** 4159.17*** 5039.59***

The symbols ***, **, and * indicate statistical significance at the 1%, 5%, and 10% level, respectively

Fig. 3. Effects of cultural dimensions on renewable energy consumption.

Van der Zwaan, 2006; Sequeira and Santos, 2018; Uzar, 2020;
Zhao and Luo, 2017).
In addition, Tables 2 to 7 (columns 4 to 6) highlight the
estimated test statistics from the Lewbel 2SLS regression. The
Kleibergen–Paap rk LM statistics for under-identification tests
are statistically significant at the 1% level of significance across
all columns, which indicate that the null of under-identified in-
struments is rejected and confirm that the model is identified.
Moreover, Cragg–Donald Wald F statistics are larger than 10 in
all estimations, indicating that at the 1% level of significance, our
internally generated instruments are not weakly correlated with
each of the cultural dimensions (Stock and Yogo, 2005). However,
the p-value for the Hansen J statistics is mostly less than 0.05
across all estimations, and thus, we reject the null hypothesis of
validity of all internal instruments—a hint that even the Lewbel
results should be taken with caution (Munyanyi et al., 2021; Omar
and Hasanujzaman, 2021).
1776
Table 8 presents two additional diagnostic test results from
the pooled OLS model. First, we perform the Breusch–Pagan La-
grange Multiplier (LM) test for random effects (columns 1 to
3) for all cases of renewable energy consumption and cultural
dimensions, in which the statistically significant results reject the
null hypothesis of zero variances across countries (i.e., no panel
effect), and favor the estimation of a panel regression analysis.
Second, the Breusch–Pagan/Cook–Weisberg test (columns 4 to 6)
is conducted, in the absence of robust standard errors, to check
the presence of heteroscedasticity. The statistically significant
results in all cases imply the rejection of the null hypothesis
of homoscedasticity (the residuals are distributed with equal
variance) and confirm the presence of heteroscedasticity. They
also confirm the use of robust standard errors in our model
estimations.
In summary, our empirical findings confirm the association
between national culture and renewable energy consumption
M.A. Omar and M. Hasanujzaman
Fig. 4. Pooled OLS and Lewbel 2SLS regression results.
Notes: It illustrates the point estimates and 95% confidence intervals of six cultural dimensions on renewable energy consumption (rec1) from Tables 2–7.
based on our baseline model and heteroscedasticity identified en-
dogenous variable regression model. The effects are illustrated in
Fig. 3. For ease of comparison, Fig. 4 plots the point estimates and
95% confidence intervals of all cultural dimensions (pdi, uai, idv,
mas, ltvst, and ivr) using renewable energy consumption (rec1)
as the dependent variable from Tables 2–7. Overall, our empiri-
cal analysis supports our earlier discussion that national culture
affects renewable energy consumption via attitude channels.
6. Further robustness checks
We conduct additional checks to examine the robustness of
the results from Tables 2 and 7. First, we perform a regression
analysis using a mixed effects model following Churchill et al.
(2018). The inclusion of random effects allows mixed effects
regression technique to account for both time-invariant and time-
varying independent variables, making it powerful and flexible
for various research designs (Churchill et al., 2018). The results
are displayed in Table 9, and we find that they reinforce the
existing conclusions regarding the effects of different cultural
dimensions.
Second, we use Driscoll–Kraay estimation technique, which
is based on a nonparametric time series covariance matrix esti-
mator (Driscoll and Kraay, 1998). This method works with both
balanced and unbalanced panels and produces heteroskedasticity
and autocorrelation consistent standard errors that are robust
to general forms of cross-sectional dependence (Hoechle, 2007).
The results, reported in Table 10, show that after considering the
issue of cross-sectional dependence, are mostly consistent with
the baseline results.
Third, to capture the unobserved region-specific factors and
exploit within-region variation in the data, we further perform a
1777
Energy Reports 10 (2023) 1765–1784
pooled OLS and Driscoll–Kraay regression analysis with six binary
variables for Asia, Africa, Europe, North America, South America,
and Oceania. Rather than using all measures of renewable energy
consumption, we utilize rec1 and the results are listed in Table 11.
We find that apart from idv and ivr, our results are robust.
Fourth, we examine the sensitivity of our results by employing
the FGLS estimator, which allows reliable results in panel esti-
mation if heteroskedasticity and cross-section dependency exist
within the sample data. The FGLS approach optimally weights
each observation to achieve greater efficiency in parameter es-
timation. This means that it provides estimates that have smaller
standard errors and narrower confidence intervals. The results are
presented in Table 12. Our findings indicate that the main results
remain largely consistent, providing evidence for the robustness
of the relative estimates.
7. Conclusion and policy implications
The global consensus for accelerated renewable energy de-
ployment, as highlighted in target 7.2 of SDG 7 – increase the
share of renewable energy in the global energy mix substantially
– necessitates concerted efforts from individual countries. The
initiatives include facilitating access to clean energy research and
ensuring other ancillary actions, such as improving energy usage
behavior. This study explores the influence of national culture
on cross-country renewable energy consumption based on global
evidence.
The main findings of our study have significant socio-economic
implications and thus call for designing suitable policies. To better
understand and explain the influence of different unique dimen-
sions of national culture on renewable energy consumption, we
consider the effect of individual dimension separately while offer-
ing policy suggestions. As expected, the power distance index has
M.A. Omar and M. Hasanujzaman Energy Reports 10 (2023) 1765–1784

Table 9
Cultural dimensions and renewable energy consumption (Mixed effect model).
Variables Dependent variable: renewable energy consumption
(1) (2) (3)
rec1 rec2 rec3
Panel A — Power distance index
pdi −0.3537** −0.4320* −0.1327*
(0.1471) (0.2317) (0.0687)
Observations 1,030 879 1,023

Panel B — Uncertainty avoidance index

uai −0.1768** −0.1080* −0.0663*
(0.0736) (0.0579) (0.0343)
Observations 1,030 879 1,023

Panel C — Individualism (vs. collectivism) index

idv 0.9817*** −0.2880* −0.2431
(0.3428) (0.1544) (0.1483)
Observations 1,030 879 1,023

Panel D — Masculinity (vs. femininity) index

mas −0.1768** 0.8640* −0.0663*
(0.0736) (0.4633) (0.0343)
Observations 1,030 879 1,023

Panel E — Long-term orientation (vs. short-term orientation) index

ltvst −1.6683** 0.1401* −0.7390**
(0.7898) (0.0745) (0.3763)
Observations 995 866 988

Panel F — Indulgence (vs. restraint) index

ivr 0.3386** 1.4463* 0.1475**
(0.1573) (0.7708) (0.0752)
Observations 1,010 881 1,003

Other controls Yes Yes Yes

Country fixed effects Yes Yes Yes

Control variables included here are consistent with those in Table 2 and have the same description in Table 1.
Robust standard errors are reported in parentheses. The symbols ***, **, and * indicate statistical significance at the
1%, 5%, and 10% level, respectively.

Table 10
Cultural dimensions and renewable energy consumption (Driscoll–Kraay results)..
Variables Dependent variable: renewable energy consumption
(1) (2) (3)
rec1 rec2 rec3
Panel A — Power distance index
pdi −0.5923*** −0.1223*** −0.0872***
(0.0781) (0.0213) (0.0173)
Observations 1,030 879 1,023
R-squared 0.9810 0.9134 0.9193

Panel B — Uncertainty avoidance index

uai −0.7616*** −0.1593*** −0.1121***
(0.1004) (0.0279) (0.0223)
Observations 1,030 879 1,023
R-squared 0.9810 0.9134 0.9193

Panel C — Individualism (vs. collectivism) index

idv 0.1140 −0.1860*** −0.0709***
(0.0843) (0.0313) (0.0093)
Observations 1,030 879 1,023
R-squared 0.9810 0.9134 0.9193

Panel D — Masculinity (vs. femininity) index

mas −0.6664*** −0.1543*** −0.0981***
(0.0879) (0.0270) (0.0195)
Observations 1,030 879 1,023
R-squared 0.9810 0.9134 0.9193

(continued on next page)

1778
M.A. Omar and M. Hasanujzaman Energy Reports 10 (2023) 1765–1784

Table 10 (continued).
Panel E — Long-term orientation (vs. short-term orientation) index
ltvst 0.1103 −0.1673*** −0.0669***
(0.0742) (0.0307) (0.0052)
Observations 995 866 988
R-squared 0.9797 0.9138 0.9213

Panel F — Indulgence (vs. restraint) index

ivr 0.4467*** −0.1288*** 0.0204***
(0.0205) (0.0241) (0.0020)
Observations 1,010 881 1,003
R-squared 0.9798 0.9140 0.9215

Other controls Yes Yes Yes

Country fixed effects Yes Yes Yes

Control variables included here are consistent with those in Table 2 and have the same description in Table 1.
Standard errors are reported in parentheses. The symbols ***, **, and * indicate statistical significance at the 1%, 5%,
and 10% level, respectively.

Table 11
Cultural dimensions and renewable energy consumption (pooled OLS and Driscoll–Kraay)..
Variables Dependent variable: renewable energy consumption
Pooled OLS Driscoll–Kraay
(1) (2)
rec1 rec1
Panel A — Power distance index
pdi −0.1501*** −0.1501***
(0.0217) (0.0081)
Observations 1,030 1,030
R-squared 0.6960 0.6960

Panel B — Uncertainty avoidance index

uai −0.0526*** −0.0526***
(0.0167) (0.0077)
Observations 1,030 1,030
R-squared 0.6825 0.6825

Panel C — Individualism (vs. collectivism) index

idv −0.0736*** −0.0736***
(0.0183) (0.0155)
Observations 1,030 1,030
R-squared 0.6835 0.6835

Panel D — Masculinity (vs. femininity) index

mas −0.1664*** −0.1664***
(0.0157) (0.0048)
Observations 1,030 1,030
R-squared 0.7092 0.7092

Panel E — Long-term orientation (vs. short-term orientation) index

ltvst −0.1370*** −0.1370***
(0.0178) (0.0042)
Observations 995 995
R-squared 0.6821 0.6821

Panel F — Indulgence (vs. restraint) index

ivr 0.0129 0.0129
(0.0202) (0.0116)
Observations 1,010 1,010
R-squared 0.6689 0.6689

Other controls Yes Yes

Region fixed effects Yes Yes

Control variables included here are consistent with those in Table 2 and have the same description in Table 1. For
pooled OLS, robust standard errors are reported in parenthesis. For Driscoll–Kraay, standard errors are reported in
parentheses. The symbols ***, **, and * indicate statistical significance at the 1%, 5%, and 10% level, respectively.

a negative association with the renewable energy consumption
status. In line with our earlier discussion and existing literature,
it is no surprise that countries with high power distance scores
accept the existence of authority as a reality and hence view
non-involvement in the decision-making process of the power
holder as an everyday phenomenon. To deal with these issues
1779
in the energy decision process, societies exhibiting a large degree
of power distance may practice participatory, consultative, and
democratic approaches—common characteristics in an egalitarian
society. Adopting an inclusive system like this may ensure energy
and social justice, which ultimately results in accelerated cleaner
energy deployment.
M.A. Omar and M. Hasanujzaman Energy Reports 10 (2023) 1765–1784

Table 12
Cultural dimensions and renewable energy consumption (FGLS estimator).
Variables Dependent variable: renewable energy consumption
(1) (2) (3)
rec1 rec2 rec3
Panel A — Power distance index
pdi −0.3910*** −0.0353*** −0.0468***
(0.0774) (0.0076) (0.0071)
Observations 1,030 879 1,023

Panel B — Uncertainty avoidance index

uai −0.1955*** −0.0202*** −0.0234***
(0.0387) (0.0060) (0.0036)
Observations 1,030 879 1,023

Panel C — Individualism (vs. collectivism) index

idv 0.7384*** −0.0078 −0.0608***
(0.1457) (0.0077) (0.0109)
Observations 1,030 879 1,023

Panel D — Masculinity (vs. femininity) index

mas −0.1955*** −0.0228*** −0.0234***
(0.0387) (0.0068) (0.0036)
Observations 1,030 879 1,023

Panel E — Long-term orientation (vs. short-term orientation) index

ltvst −1.9288*** −0.0431*** −0.2904***
(0.3875) (0.0095) (0.0389)
Observations 995 866 988

Panel F — Indulgence (vs. restraint) index

ivr 0.3951*** −0.0285*** 0.0580***
(0.0773) (0.0056) (0.0078)
Observations 1,010 881 1,003

Other controls Yes Yes Yes

Country fixed effects Yes Yes Yes

Control variables included here are consistent with those in Table 2 and have the same description in Table 1.
Standard errors are reported in parentheses. The symbols ***, **, and * indicate statistical significance at the 1%, 5%,
and 10% level, respectively.

The uncertainty avoidance index, as we hypothesize, nega-
tively influences renewable energy consumption. With a conser-
vative and structured attitude, people in a high-risk avoidance
culture try to minimize the uncontrollable and unpredictable
affairs in their daily lives, which may be why the negative em-
pirical relationship between the culture and renewable energy
consumption exists. Hence, countries with a strong uncertainty
avoidance index should focus on designing a suitable academic
curriculum that promotes perception change which would be
beneficial in developing energy-efficient behavior and cleaner
energy use among the people in the long run. Besides, the high-
risk avoidance societies’ governments may invest more in energy
storage technologies to deal with the uncertainties related to the
intermittent nature of renewable energy.
In general, we find a negative empirical relationship between
the masculinity vs. femininity index of national culture and re-
newable energy consumption. By nature, highly masculine so-
cieties tend to prioritize achievement, such as higher economic
growth, while focusing less on initiatives that have significant
future consequences, such as environmental protection. Hence,
a well-designed energy literacy program is critical for cultures
with high masculine elements. More specifically, the program can
make people aware of making informed energy decisions and
improving energy-conservation attitudes, which in turn supports
the transition to a cleaner and low carbon future.
Unsurprisingly, we observe a mixed result from the empir-
ical analysis of the individualism vs. collectivism dimension’s
role in renewable energy consumption. Several existing studies
confirm the favorable effect of highly individualistic societies on
adopting green energy technologies or choosing cleaner energy
1780
sources, which is an expected outcome from an innovation-driven
individualistic society. On the other hand, countries with low
individualism scores (collectivistic societies) can benefit from
group effort and loyalty, which may positively influence renew-
able energy deployment. More specifically, collectivistic societies
can emphasize the research and development of renewable en-
ergy deployment, ensure gender balance by minimizing gender-
based discrimination and promoting shared responsibilities and
strengthen public–private collaboration to accelerate the deploy-
ment of cleaner energy further.
Contrary to our expectation, we find a negative influence of
the long-vs. short-term orientation index on renewable energy
consumption. One possible reason may be the inherent ‘‘flexibil-
ity to change’’ characteristics of the long-term oriented cultures,
which allow them to behave as per the societal need. Countries
with high scores in this dimension may promote the concept
of a transformative institution that ensures equitable solutions
to environmental issues through institutional and social partner-
ship while considering the interest of all, including marginalized
groups in society.
Finally, the empirical analysis reveals a negative association
between the indulgence vs. restraint index and renewable energy
consumption. Intuitively, the chances of deployment of renew-
able energies are higher in indulgent cultures than in restrained
ones, as innovation and creativity are promoted through human
drives and greater freedom. Hence, non-indulgent (or restraint)
societies may emphasize mutual alliance or global collaboration
towards fulfilling cleaner energy goals.
M.A. Omar and M. Hasanujzaman Energy Reports 10 (2023) 1765–1784

CRediT authorship contribution statement Acknowledgments

Md Abdullah Omar: Conceptualizing the main focus of the
study, Processing and calculating data, Conducting econometric
analysis, Analyzing the major findings of the study. Muhammad
Hasanujzaman: Conceptualizing the main focus of the study,
Processing and calculating data, Conducting econometric analysis,
Analyzing the major findings of the study.
We wish to thank Professor Dorian Owen, University of Otago,
New Zealand, for his valuable and constructive comments in this
study. The authors are also thankful to the editors and anonymous
reviewers for their useful suggestions and comments to improve
the overall quality of this paper. All authors approved the version
of the manuscript to be published.

Declaration of competing interest

Funding

The authors declare that they have no known competing finan-

This research did not receive any specific grant from funding
cial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared
to influence the work reported in this paper. agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

Data availability Appendix

Data will be made available on request See Tables A.1–A.3.

Table A.1
List of countries.
1 2 3
Albania Germany Norway
Algeria Ghana Pakistan
Andorra Greece Panama
Argentina Guatemala Peru
Armenia Hong Kong SAR, China Philippines
Australia Hungary Poland
Austria Iceland Portugal
Azerbaijan India Puerto Rico
Bangladesh Indonesia Romania
Belarus Iran, Islamic Rep. Russian Federation
Belgium Iraq Rwanda
Bosnia and Herzegovina Ireland Saudi Arabia
Brazil Israel Serbia
Bulgaria Italy Singapore
Burkina Faso Jamaica Slovak Republic
Canada Japan Slovenia
Chile Jordan South Africa
China Korea, Rep. Spain
Colombia Kyrgyz Republic Suriname
Costa Rica Latvia Sweden
Croatia Lithuania Switzerland
Cyprus Luxembourg Tanzania
Czech Republic Malaysia Thailand
Denmark Mali Trinidad and Tobago
Dominican Republic Malta Turkey
Ecuador Mexico Uganda
Egypt, Arab Rep. Moldova Ukraine
El Salvador Montenegro United Kingdom
Estonia Morocco United States
Ethiopia Netherlands Uruguay
Finland New Zealand Vietnam
France Nigeria Zambia
Georgia North Macedonia Zimbabwe

Table A.2
Panel cross-sectional dependence test.
Variable CD-test p-value average joint T mean ρ mean abs(ρ )
rec1 10.57*** 0.00 27.64 0.03 0.55
rec2 120.38*** 0.00 28.00 0.23 0.25
rec3 149.54*** 0.00 27.04 0.40 0.54
loggdp 299.42*** 0.00 27.00 0.83 0.85
logco2 11.28*** 0.00 27.71 0.03 0.49
logenuse 38.88*** 0.00 23.57 0.11 0.40
grossfixed 17.17*** 0.00 25.59 0.05 0.37
trade 96.10*** 0.00 26.14 0.27 0.46
unemploy 20.51*** 0.00 28.00 0.06 0.35
urbanization 145.88*** 0.00 28.00 0.40 0.76
rule 21.49*** 0.00 19.28 0.07 0.36
rdexp 34.72*** 0.00 14.36 0.12 0.40

Under the null hypothesis of cross-section independence, CD ∼ N(0,1).

1781
M.A. Omar and M. Hasanujzaman
Table A.3
List of abbreviations.
Abbreviations
ADF
BP
CD
EIA
FGLS
GDP
GMM
IEA
IV
LM
NC
OLS
SDGs
UN
US
WDI
WGI
2SLS
3SLS
References
Abbas, Q., Nurunnabi, M., Alfakhri, Y., Khan, W., Hussain, A., Iqbal, W., 2020.
The role of fixed capital formation renewable and non-renewable energy
in economic growth and carbon emission: a case study of belt and road
initiative project. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 27 (36), 45476–45486.
Acheampong, A.O., Erdiaw-Kwasie, M.O., Abunyewah, M., 2021. Does energy
accessibility improve human development? Evidence from energy-poor
regions. Energy Econ. 96, 105165.
Ahlborg, H., Boräng, F., Jagers, S.C., Söderholm, P., 2015. Provision of electricity to
african households: the importance of democracy and institutional quality.
Energy Policy 87, 125–135.
Ang, J.B., Fredriksson, P.G., Sharma, S., 2020. Individualism and the adoption of
clean energy technology. Resour. Energy Econ. 61, 101180.
Apergis, N., Payne, J.E., 2014. The causal dynamics between renewable energy
real GDP, emissions and oil prices: evidence from OECD countries. Appl.
Econ. 46 (36), 4519–4525.
Appau, S., Churchill, S.A., Farrell, L., 2019. Social integration and subjective
wellbeing. Appl. Econ. 51 (16), 1748–1761.
Aririguzoh, S., 2022. Communication competencies culture and SDGs: effective
processes to cross-cultural communication. Hum. Soc. Sci. Commun. 9 (1),
1–11.
Arosa, C.M.V., Richie, N., Schuhmann, P.W., 2014. The impact of culture on
market timing in capital structure choices. Res. Int. Bus. Finance 31, 178–192.
Baum, C.F., Lewbel, A., Schaffer, M.E., Talavera, O., 2012. Instrumental variables
estimation using heteroskedasticity-based instruments. In: United Kingdom
Stata User’s Group Meetings, vol. 7.
Baum, J.R., Olian, J.D., Erez, M., Schnell, E.R., Smith, K.G., Sims, H.P., Scully, J.S.,
Smith, K.A., 1993. Nationality and work role interactions: A cultural contrast
of Israeli and U.S. entrepreneurs’ versus managers’ needs. J. Bus. Venturing
8, 449–512.
Bhattacharya, M., Churchill, S.A., Paramati, S.R., 2017. The dynamic impact of
renewable energy and institutions on economic output and CO2 emissions
across regions. Renew. Energy 111, 157–167.
Boubakri, N., Chkir, I., Saadi, S., Zhu, H., 2021. Does national culture af-
fect corporate innovation? International evidence. J. Corporate Finance 66,
101847.
BP Statistical Review of World Energy, 2022. Retrieved January 10 2022
from. https://www.bp.com/en/global/corporate/energy-economics/statistical-
review-of-world-energy.html.
Brough, A.R., Wilkie, J.E.B., Ma, J., Isaac, M.S., Gal, D., 2016. Is eco-friendly
unmanly? The green-feminine stereotype and its effect on sustainable
consumption. J. Consum. Res. 43 (4), 567–582.
Burke, P.J., Dundas, G., 2015. Female labor force participation and household
dependence on biomass energy: evidence from national longitudinal data.
World Dev. 67, 424–437.
Cadoret, I., Padovano, F., 2016. The political drivers of renewable energies
policies. Energy Econ. 56, 261–269.
Chaudhry, S.M., Shafiullah, M., 2021. Does culture affect energy poverty?
Evidence from a cross-country analysis. Energy Econ. 102, 105536.
Chen, Y., Dou, P.Y., Rhee, S.G., Truong, C., Veeraraghavan, M., 2015. National
culture and corporate cash holdings around the world. J. Bank. Financ. 50,
1–18.
Chen, X., Li, H., Qin, Q., Peng, Y., 2021. Market-oriented reforms and China’s green
economic development: an empirical study based on stochastic frontier
analysis. Emerg. Mark. Finance Trade 57 (4), 949–971.
Energy Reports 10 (2023) 1765–1784
Augmented Dickey–Fuller
British Petroleum
Cross-sectional Dependence
Energy Information Administration
Feasible Generalized Least Squares
Gross Domestic Product
Generalized Method of Moments
International Energy Agency
Instrumental Variable
Lagrange Multiplier
National Culture
Ordinary Least Squares
Sustainable Development Goals
United Nations
United States
World Development Indicators
Worldwide Governance Indicators
Two-stage Least Squares
Three-stage Least Squares
Choi, K.-S., 2020. National culture and R & D investments. Eur. J. Finance 26 (6),
500–531.
Churchill, S.A., Ivanovski, K., Bhattacharya, M., 2018. The role of ethnic diversity
in sustainable environmental growth: new evidence across different income
regions. Appl. Econ. 51 (4), 398–408.
Churchill, S.A., Ivanovski, K., Munyanyi, M.E., 2021. Income inequality and
renewable energy consumption: time-varying non-parametric evidence. J.
Clean. Prod. 296, 126306.
Ciocirlan, C., Pettersson, C., 2012. Does workforce diversity matter in the fight
against climate change? an analysis of fortune 500 companies. Corp. Soc.
Responsib. Environ. Manag. 19 (1), 47–62.
Claudy, M.C., Peterson, M., O’Driscoll, A., 2013. Understanding the attitude-
behavior gap for renewable energy systems using behavioral reasoning
theory. J. Macromark. 33 (4), 273–287.
Cox, P.L., Friedman, B.A., Tribunella, T., 2011. Relationships among cultural di-
mensions, national gross domestic product, and environmental sustainability.
J. Appl. Bus. Econ. 12 (6).
Dangelico, R.M., Fraccascia, L., Nastasi, A., 2020. National culture’s influence
on environmental performance of countries: a study of direct and indirect
effects. Sustain. Dev. 28, 1773–1786.
Davis, L.S., Williamson, C.R., 2016. Culture and the regulation of entry. J. Comp.
Econ. 44 (4), 1055–1083.
Deephouse, D.L., Newburry, W., Soleimani, A., 2016. The effects of institutional
development and national culture on cross-national differences in corporate
reputation. J. World Bus. 51 (3), 463–473.
Dincer, O.C., 2011. Ethnic diversity and trust. Contemporary Econ. Policy 29 (2),
284–293.
Disli, M., Ng, A., Askari, H., 2016. Culture income, and CO2 emission. Renew.
Sustain. Energy Rev. 62, 418–428.
Driscoll, J.C., Kraay, A.C., 1998. Consistent covariance matrix estimation with
spatially dependent panel data. Rev. Econ. Stat. 80, 549–560.
Durach, C.F., Wiengarten, F., 2017. Environmental management: the impact of
national and organisational long-term orientation on plants’ environmental
practices and performance efficacy. J. Clean. Prod. 167, 749–758.
Duscha, V., Fougeyrollas, A., Nathani, C., Pfaff, M., Ragwitz, M., Resch, G.,
Walz, R. . . .., 2016. Renewable energy deployment in europe up to 2030 and
the aim of a triple dividend. Energy Policy 95, 314–323.
EIA, 2021. U.S. energy information administration. Retrieved December 27 2021
from https://www.eia.gov/.
Felix, R., Hinsch, C., Rauschnabel, P.A., Schlegelmilch, B.B., 2018. Religiousness
and environmental concern: A multilevel and multi-country analysis of the
role of life satisfaction and indulgence. J. Bus. Res. 91, 304–312.
Griffith, D., Rubera, G., 2014. A cross-cultural investigation of new product
strategies for technological and design innovations. J. Int. Mark. 22 (1), 5–20.
Guiso, L., Sapienza, P., Zingales, L., 2006. Does culture affect economic outcomes?.
J. Econ. Perspect. 20 (2), 23–48.
Gupta, K., McIver, R., 2016. Does national culture affect attitudes toward environ-
ment friendly practices?. In: Ramiah, V., Gregoriou, G.N. (Eds.), Handbook of
Environmental and Sustainable Finance. Academic Press, London, San Diego,
Oxford, pp. 241–263.
Halder, P., Hansen, E.N., Kangas, J., Laukkanen, T., 2020. How national culture
and ethics matter in consumers’ green consumption values. J. Clean. Prod.
265, 121754.
Haq, M., Hu, D., Faff, R., Pathan, S., 2018. New evidence on national culture and
bank capital structure. 50, pp. 41–64,
1782
M.A. Omar and M. Hasanujzaman
Herbig, P., Dunphy, S., 1998. Culture and innovation. Cross Cultural Manag. Int.
J. 5 (4), 13–21.
Higueras-Castillo, E., Liébana-Cabanillas, F.J., Muñoz-Leiva, F., Molinillo, S., 2019.
The role of collectivism in modeling the adoption of renewable energies: a
cross-cultural approach. Int. J. Environ. Sci. Technol. 16, 2143–2160.
Hoechle, D., 2007. Robust standard errors for panel regressions with
cross-sectional dependence. Stata J. 7, 281–312.
Hofstede, G., 1980. Culture’s consequences: international differences in
work-related values. SAGE, Beverly Hills, CA.
Hofstede, G., 1997. Cultures and organizations: software of the mind.
McGraw-Hill, New York.
Hofstede, G., 2001. Culture’s consequences: comparing values, behaviors,
institutions, and organizations across nations. SAGE, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Hofstede, G., 2021. Dimension data matrix geert hofstede. Retrieved December
25 2022 from. https://geerthofstede.com/research-and-vsm/dimension-data-
matrix/.
Hofstede, G., Hofstede, G.J., Minkov, M., 2010. Cultures and organizations:
software of the mind. McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.
Hofstede, G., Minkov, M., 2010. Long-versus short-term orientation: new
perspectives. Asia Pacific Bus. Rev. 16 (4), 493–504.
Hofstede Insights, 2021. National culture. hofstede insights. Retrieved December
25, 2021, from. https://hi.hofstede-insights.com/national-culture.
Hou, B.D., Tang, X., Ma, C., Liu, L., Wei, Y.M., Liao, H., 2017. Cooking fuel choice
in rural China: results from microdata. J. Clean. Prod. 142, 538–547.
House, R., Javidan, M., Hanges, P., Dorfman, P., 2002. Understanding cultures
and implicit leadership theories across the globe: an introduction to project
GLOBE. J. World Bus. 37 (1), 3–10.
Husted, B.W., 2005. Culture and ecology: A cross-national study of the de-
terminants of environmental sustainability. MIR: Manag. Int. Rev. 45 (3),
349–371.
Illingworth, P., 2012. Ethics and social capital for global well-being. Int. Rev.
Econ. 59 (4), 389–407.
International Energy Agency (IEA), 2021. Renewables 2021: Analysis and Forecast
to 2026. IEA.
Jebli, M.B., Youssef, S.B., 2015. The environmental Kuznets curve economic
growth, renewable and non-renewable energy, and trade in Tunisia. Renew.
Sustain. Energy Rev. 47, 173–185.
Kaasa, A., Vadi, M., Varblane, U., 2014. Regional cultural differences within
European countries: Evidence from multi-country surveys. Manag. Int. Rev.
54 (6), 825–852.
Kaminsky, J.A., 2016. Cultured construction: global evidence of the impact of
national values on renewable electricity infrastructure choice. Environ. Sci.
Technol. 50 (4), 2108–2116.
Kellert, S.R., 1996. The value of life. Island Press, Washington, D.C.
Khezri, M., A., Heshmati., Khodaei, M., 2021. The role of R & D in the effectiveness
of renewable energy determinants: a spatial econometric analysis. Energy
Econ. 99, 105287.
Kinsley, D.R., 1995. Ecology and religion. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, N J.
Kirkman, B.L., Lowe, K.B., Gibson, C.B., 2006. A quarter century of Culture’s Con-
sequences: a review of empirical research incorporating Hofstede’s cultural
values framework. J. Int. Bus. Stud. 37, 285–320.
Lahuerta-Otero, E., González-Bravo, M.I., 2018. Can national culture affect the
implementation of common sustainable policies? A European response.
Cross-Cultural Res. 52 (5), 468–495.
Laurent, E., 2015. Social-Ecology: exploring the missing link in sustainable de-
velopment. HAL Id: hal-01136326. https://hal-sciencespo.archives-ouvertes.
fr/hal-01136326.
Lee, C., Wang, C., Ho, S., 2022. The dimension of green economy: culture
viewpoint. Econ. Anal. Policy 74, 122–138.
Leigh, A., 2006. Trust inequality and ethnic heterogeneity. Econ. Rec. 82 (258),
268–280.
Leung, K., Bond, M.H., 2004. Social axioms: a model for social beliefs in
multicultural perspective. In: Zanna, M.P. (Ed.), Advances in Experimental
Social Psychology, 36. Elsevier, Academic Press, San Diego, CA, pp. 119–197.
Leung, K., Bond, M.H., de Carrasquel, S.R., et al., 2002. Social axioms: the search
for universal dimensions of general beliefs about how the world functions.
J. Cross-Cultural Psychol. 33 (3), 286–302.
Lewbel, A., 2012. Using heteroscedasticity to identify and estimate mismeasured
and endogenous regressor models. J. Bus. Econom. Statist. 30 (1), 67–80.
Lin, L., Chang, H.L., Shahzad, I., Waseem, N., 2022. A nexus between the
rule of law, green innovation, growth and sustainable environment in top
asian countries: fresh insights from heterogeneous panel estimation. Econ.
Res.-Ekon. Istraživanja 1–19.
Lin, B., Zhu, J., 2019. Determinants of renewable energy technological innovation
in China under CO2 emissions constraint. J. Environ. Manag. 247, 662–671.
Mihet, R., 2013. Effects of culture on firm risk-taking: a cross-country and
cross-industry analysis. J. Cultural Econ. 37 (1), 109–151.
Milton, K., 1997. Ecologies: anthropology culture, and the environment. Int. Soc.
Sci. J. 49 (4), 477–495.
Mogha, V., Williams, B., 2021. Culture and capital structure: What else to the
puzzle? Int. Rev. Financ. Anal. 73, 101614.
1783
Energy Reports 10 (2023) 1765–1784
Munyanyi, M.E., Mintah, K., Baako, K.T., 2021. Energy-related deprivation and
housing tenure transitions. Energy Econ. 98, 105235.
Nakata, C., Sivakumar, K., 1996. National culture and new product development:
an integrative review. J. Mark. 60 (1), 61.
North, D.C., 2005. Understanding the Process of Economic Change. Princeton
University Press, New Jersey.
Offermann, L.R., Hellmann, P.S., 1997. Culture’s consequences for leadership
behavior: national values in action. J. Cross-Cultural Psychol. 28 (3), 342–351.
Omar, M.A., Hasanujzaman, M., 2021. Multidimensional energy poverty in
Bangladesh and its effect on health and education: a multilevel analysis
based on household survey data. Energy Policy 158, 112579.
Onel, N., Mukherjee, A., 2014. The effects of national culture and human
development on environmental health. Environ. Dev. Sustain. 16 (1), 79–101.
Park, H., Russell, C., Lee, J., 2007. National culture and environmental
sustainability: A cross-national analysis. J. Econ. Finance 31, 104–121.
Pelau, C., Pop, N.A., 2018. Implications for the energy policy derived from
the relation between the cultural dimensions of hofstede’s model and the
consumption of renewable energies. Energy Policy 118, 160–168.
Peng, Y., Lin, S., 2009. National culture economic development, population
growth and environmental performance: the mediating role of education.
J. Bus. Ethics 90, 203–219.
Pesaran, M.H., 2004. General diagnostic tests for cross section dependence in
panels. IZA Discussion Paper No. 1240.
Pesaran, M.H., 2015. Testing weak cross-sectional dependence in large panels.
Econometric Rev. 34, 1089–1117.
Prim, A.L., Filho, L.S., Zamur, G.A.C., Di Serio, L.C., 2017. The relationship between
national culture dimensions and the degree of innovation. Int. J. Innov.
Manag. 21 (1), 1730001.
Przychodzen, W., Przychodzen, J., 2020. Determinants of renewable energy
production in transition economies: A panel data approach. Energy 191,
116583.
Qamruzzaman, M., Jianguo, W., 2020. The asymmetric relationship between
financial development trade openness, foreign capital flows, and renew-
able energy consumption: Fresh evidence from panel NARDL investigation.
Renew. Energy 159, 827–842.
Rigobon, R., 2003. Identification through heteroskedasticity. Rev. Econ. Stat. 85
(4), 777–792.
Rinne, T., Steel, G.D., Fairweather, J., 2012. Hofstede and shane revisited: the role
of power distance and individualism in national-level innovation success.
Cross-Cultural Res. 46 (2), 91–108.
Sadorsky, P., 2009. Renewable energy consumption CO2 emissions and oil prices
in the G7 countries. Energy Econ. 31 (3), 456–462.
Sagar, A.D., Van der Zwaan, B., 2006. Technological innovation in the energy
sector: R & D deployment, and learning-by-doing. Energy Policy 34 (17),
2601–2608.
Sarafidis, V., Wansbeek, T., 2012. Cross-sectional dependence in panel data
analysis. Econometric Rev. 31, 483–531.
Scheinberg, S., MacMillan, I.C., 1988. An 11 country study of motivations to start
a business. In: Kirchoff, B., Long, W., McMuUan, W., Vesper, K.H., Wetzel, W.
(Eds.), Frontiers of entrepreneurship research. Babson College, Wellesley, MA.
Sequeira, T.N., Santos, M.S., 2018. Renewable energy and politics: a systematic
review and new evidence. J. Clean. Prod. 192, 553–568.
Shane, S., Kolvereid, L., Westhead, P., 1991. An exploratory examination of the
reasons leading to new firm formation across country and gender. J. Bus.
Venturing 6, 431–446.
Shortall, R., Kharrazi, A., 2017. Cultural factors of sustainable energy develop-
ment: A case study of geothermal energy in Iceland and Japan. Renew.
Sustain. Energy Rev. 79, 101–109.
Smith, P.B., Peterson, M., Schwartz, S., 2002. Cultural values sources of guid-
ance, and their relevance to managerial behavior: a 47-nation study. J.
Cross-Cultural Psychol. 33 (1), 188–208.
Van den Steen, E., 2004. Rational overoptimism and other biases. Am. Econ. Rev.
94 (4), 1141–1151.
Stock, J.H., Wright, J.H., Yogo, M., 2002. A survey of weak instruments and weak
identification in generalized method of moments. J. Bus. Econom. Statist. 20
(4), 518–529.
Stock, J.H., Yogo, M., 2005. Testing for weak instruments in linear IV regression.
In: Andrews, D., Stock, J. (Eds.), Identification and Inference for Econometric
Models: Essays in Honor of Thomas J. Rothenberg. Cambridge University
Press, Cambridge, pp. 80–105.
Sun, H., Edziah, B.K., Sun, C., Kporsu, A.K., 2019. Institutional quality green
innovation and energy efficiency. Energy Policy 135, 111002.
Tang, L., Koveos, P.E., 2008. A framework to update Hofstede’s cultural value
indices: economic dynamics and institutional stability. J. Int. Bus. Stud. 39,
1045–1063.
Taras, V., Rowney, J., Steel, P., 2009. Half a century of measuring culture: Review
of approaches challenges, and limitations based on the analysis of 121
instruments for quantifying culture. J. Int. Manag. 15, 357–373.
Thapar, S., Sharma, S., Verma, A., 2017. Local community as shareholders in
clean energy projects: Innovative strategy for accelerating renewable energy
deployment in India. Renew. Energy 101, 873–885.
M.A. Omar and M. Hasanujzaman
Tian, M., Deng, P., Zhang, Y., Salmador, M.P., 2018. How does culture in-
fluence innovation? a systematic literature review. Manag. Decis. 56 (5),
1088–1107.
Uzar, U., 2020. Is income inequality a driver for renewable energy
consumption? J. Clean. Prod. 255, 120287.
Vachon, S., 2010. International operations and sustainable development: should
national culture matter? Sustain. Dev. 18 (6), 350–361.
Waarts, E., Van Everdingen, Y., 2005. The influence of national culture on the
adoption status of innovations: An empirical study of firms across Europe.
Euro. Manag. J. 23 (6), 601–610.
World Bank, 2021. World Development Indicators (WDI). The World Bank, Wash-
ington, D.C, Retrieved December 23 2021 from. https://databank.worldbank.
org/source/world-development-indicators.
1784
Energy Reports 10 (2023) 1765–1784
Wu, L., Broadstock, D.C., 2015. Does economic financial and institutional devel-
opment matter for renewable energy consumption? evidence from emerging
economies. Int. J. Econ. Policy Emerg. Econ. 8 (1), 20–39.
Xia, D., Li, Y., He, Y., Zhang, T., Wang, Y., Gu, J., 2019. Exploring the role
of cultural individualism and collectivism on public acceptance of nuclear
energy. Energy Policy 132, 208–215.
Yasmin, N., Grundmann, P., 2020. Home-cooked energy transitions: women
empowerment and biogas-based cooking technology in Pakistan. Energy
Policy 137, 111074.
Zahran, S., Brody, S.D., Grover, H., A., Vedlitz., 2006. Climate change vulnerability
and policy support. Soc. Nat. Resour. 19 (9), 771–789.
Zhao, X., Luo, D., 2017. Driving force of rising renewable energy in China:
environment regulation and employment. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 68,
48–56.