Journal of Cleaner Production 240 (2019) 118204

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Cleaner Production

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

Technological innovation and green growth in the Organization for

Economic Cooperation and Development economies
Claudia Nyarko Mensah a, *, Xingle Long a, Lamini Dauda a, Kofi Baah Boamah a, b,
Muhammad Salman a, Florence Appiah-Twum a, Andrews Kwamena Tachie a
a
School of Management, Jiangsu University, Zhenjiang, 212013, PR China
b
Data Link Institute, Tema, Ghana

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

Article history: Green growth means improving production and demand-based emissions through innovation of green
Received 23 February 2019 technologies for cleaner production and supply chain. This study examines the effect of technological
Received in revised form innovation on green growth on twenty-eight (28) Organization for Economic Cooperation and Devel-
18 July 2019
opment (OECD) economies for the period 2000 to 2014 with data sourced from OECD library statistics
Accepted 27 August 2019
Available online 28 August 2019
and World Bank, World Development Indicators. The economies were sub-grouped into Oceania,
America, Asia and Europe. Preliminary tests conducted were Cross-section dependence test, Im Pesaran
Handling editor: Mattias Lindahl and Shin unit root tests. Westerlund cointegration confirmed that the variables are cointegrated. Using
STIRPAT and IPAT models, the study found transport related technologies has been beneficial to green
Keywords: growth in the Oceania sub-region. OECD Asia's technologies for production and processing of goods have
Technological innovation been beneficial to green growth. Climate change technologies in relation to generation and transmission
Green growth of energy are detrimental to green growth in the OECD economies but its impact is visible in Asia and
CO2 emissions Europe sub-panels. Environmental related budget and taxes have been found worthwhile in the pursuit
Demand-based CO2 emissions
of green growth from the dominant negative coefficient values. Findings led to the presentation of some
Production-based CO2 emissions
important implications which could be useful for policy-makers and industries in the pursuit of green
growth globally.
© 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction technologies enhance firms sustainability (Bhupendra and Sangle,

Green growth has received swift attention recently as global
pursuit for economic success often leads to environmental degra-
dation. Decoupling growth from environmental downgrade de-
mands investing in green technologies which lowers the potential
risk climate change pose to human (Lin and Zhu, 2019). Green
growth focuses on greening production and consumption (Gotschol
et al., 2014; Luukkanen et al., 2019) through the invention of green
technologies as well clean energy use. Technological innovation
thus address both production-based and demand-based emissions,
hence seen as the principal driving force of industrial evolution
(Yao et al., 2018). Designing, developing and executing clean
* Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: claudiamensahphd@yahoo.com (C.N. Mensah), longxingle@
163.com (X. Long), dabremp@gmail.com (L. Dauda), kofibaahboamah@yahoo.com
(K.B. Boamah), dawarsalman@gmail.com (M. Salman), florence.twum@yahoo.com
(F. Appiah-Twum), andrews23pedro@gmail.com (A.K. Tachie).
2015).
Cleaner technologies are required in generating and supplying
energy for consumer needs (industries, domestic, transport, other
service sectors). A cleaner technology means but not limited to
adopting low-polluting transport facilities for commuting, pro-
moting clean procurement and supply chain activities of firms. This
infer that green technologies meshed with strategic policies are
crucial for sustainable growth Bekhet and Latif (2018), conse-
quently, green growth.
Extensive research has been carried out on green growth
€ m, 2018; Vazquez-Brust
(Bagheri et al., 2018; Stoknes and Rockstro
et al., 2014; Wang et al., 2019; Wang and Shao, 2019), focusing on
different factors impelling green growth on different economies.
These researchers considered different pollutants as a measure of
green growth of which includes CO2 emissions in totality. However,
none disaggregated green growth into demand-based and
production-based emissions. Bagheri et al. (2018), assessed the
extent to which changes in final demand impact on CO2 emissions.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.118204
0959-6526/© 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
2 C.N. Mensah et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 240 (2019) 118204
They considered total emissions, without focusing categorically on
demand-based emissions. This study again neglected transport
related emission associated to supply of goods demanded.
Guo et al. (2017), examined green growth considering the
interaction effects of environmental regulation and technological
innovation on regional green growth performance. However, they
neglected the role both environmentally related taxes and envi-
ronmentally related budget play on green growth. Stegemann and
Ossewaarde (2018), examined green growth, unveiling the myth of
sustainable energy transformation but deserted the specific effect
of climate change technologies for generation and transmission of
energy. Mostly, energy used has been studied widely in green
growth with little focus on energy supply (Ma et al., 2018). is of the
view that damaging effect caused the climate is a result of indus-
trial activities and energy supply. Yet, little attention has been given
to energy supply in literature.
From diverse perspective, technological innovation has been
studied (Irandoust, 2016; Martínez-García et al., 2018). These au-
thors confirmed the importance of technological innovation in the
climate change mitigation battle. Irandoust (2016), employed a
modified version of the Granger non-causality test to examine
technological innovation in renewable energy sources and
concluded that technological innovation plays an effective role in
the renewable energy-growth nexus. This researcher used real R&D
spending on the energy sector as a proxy for technological inno-
vation. This infers that no consideration was given to climate
change technologies in relation to generation and supply of energy.
Martínez-García et al. (2018), then examined energy generation
technologies using the multi-criteria approach and the ELEC-
TREeIIIeSEM techniques. Different categories of energy generation
technologies were studied. Although their study considered envi-
ronmental sustainability, the focus of the supply side of energy
generated is missing.
(Wang (2017); Wang et al., 2018) used DEA model, pooled panel
regression and cross-sectional framework respectively, to examine
the effect of climate change technologies for a selected United
States manufacturing companies. These studies adopted R&D
expenditure and investment in mitigation technologies. Diverse
industrial sectors were considered in these studies. However, the
researchers did not categorically examine the role climate change
related technologies in relation to production and processing of
goods played in promoting green growth.
Rodríguez et al. (2019) conducted a study on the impact of
environmentally related taxes on green growth in Portugal using
the static CGE (Computable general equilibrium) model. They
found that environmentally related tax exerts positive feedback on
both economic and green growth. Nonetheless, their study omitted
the role of environmentally related budget on green growth. There
have been studies on supply chain and environmental quality
(Chen et al., 2019; Koberg and Longoni, 2019; Ouardighi et al., 2016;
Saberi, 2018) based on buyerevendor supply chain framework,
Structured content analysis, two-stage game and multiperiod,
multitier, sustainable supply chain with freight carriers network
model to address such concerns. This is because various sectors of
economies are interdependent and linked to environmental
pollution through supply chains (Shi et al., 2019). Notwithstanding,
none of the studies considered the role climate change technologies
in relation to transport have reduced transport related emissions.
CO2 accounts for 76% (38 ± 3.8 GtCO2eq/yr) of total anthropo-
genic greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, therefore stands as the
major Greenhouse gas (GHG) and the highest emitting sector is the
industrial sector. (IPCC, 2014). Green growth is unachievable in this
regard. It has been revealed that, baseline emissions from non-
OECD nations are anticipated to be higher than those from the
OECD countries, (IPCC, 2014). Studying the impact of technological
innovation on green growth in the OECD economies is worthwhile
for the fact that, climate change abatement technologies are
continuously invented by these economies. Policies proposed out of
the findings of this study can therefore be applied to the non-OECD
economies.
This study seeks to make four major contribution to existing
literature. First, the twenty-eight OECD economies for this study
are sub-grouped into four sub-panels to identify which sub-
regional bloc has been most effective in the pursuit of green
growth with their technological innovation. This would serve as
benchmark for others to emulate. Secondly, the contribution of
climate change mitigation technologies related to transportation,
climate change mitigation technologies related to energy genera-
tion, transmission or distribution and climate change mitigation
technologies in the production or processing of goods to green
growth is examined. Third, CO2 emissions are disaggregated into
three; demand-based emissions, production-based emission and
total CO2 emissions to examine the impact of the climate change
technologies understudy from the three source of emissions. Four,
the study utilized recent econometric panel test as cross-section
dependence (CD) (Pesaran, 2004) and Westerlund cointegration
tests (Westerlund, 2007) to check for cross-sectional dependence
and cointegration among the variables. Based on a modified STIR-
PAT (Dietz and Rosa, 1997.), IPAT (Ehrlich and Holdren, 1971) and
multiple linear regression (MLR) methods to estimate the long
relationship among the variable at the panel level. Finally, this
study examines the impact of environmentally related budget on
green growth which has not received much attention in literature.
Findings from the study would not only extend knowledge but also
reveal factors to reinforce and ones to disengage in the pursuit of
green growth globally.
The remaining section is as follows. Section 2 provides infor-
mation on the data, and research methodology. Section 3 presents
the results of the study. Section 4 discusses the findings of the study
and Section 5 presents the conclusion, possible policies based on
the findings.
2. Materials and methods
2.1. Data
In empirically examining technological innovation and green
growth in the OECD, set of data was gathered on twenty-eight (28)
countries from the OECD statistics (oecd-ilibrary.org/statistics) and
the World Bank database, World Development Indicators (WDI)
(databank.worldbank.org). For consistency and data availability, we
covered the period from 2000 to 2014. Data on CO2 emissions,
measured in kilotons, were obtained from the World Development
Indicators. Statistics on production-based CO2 emissions, demand-
based CO2 emissions, renewable energy supply, energy consump-
tion in industry, energy consumption in transport, environmentally
related R&D budget, environmentally related tax, Climate change
mitigation technologies related to transportation, Climate change
mitigation technologies related to energy generation, transmission
or distribution and Climate change mitigation technologies in the
production or processing of goods also obtained from OECD sta-
tistics (oecd-ilibrary.org). Table 1 presents information on the
variables.
2.2. Econometric approach
Examining the impact of technological innovation on green
growth in the OECD economies, three econometric models were
developed and estimated based on multiply linear regression
(MLR), STIRPAT and IPAT models. The IPAT model purports that
 C.N. Mensah et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 240 (2019) 118204
Table 1
Variable definitions.
Variable Definition
CO2 Carbon dioxide emission(kilotons)
PBCO2 Production based emissions (tonnes, million)
DBCO2 Demand based emissions (tonnes, million)
RES Renewable energy supply (kilograms)
INEC Energy consumption in industry (kilograms)
TTEC Energy consumption in transport (kilograms)
ENDB Environmentally related government R&D budget (USD)
ENTX Environmentally related tax (USD)
TECTT Climate change mitigation technologies related to transportation (number)
TECEG Climate change mitigation technologies related to energy generation, transmission or distribution (number)
TTPP Climate change mitigation technologies in the production or processing of goods (number)
environmental impacts are the multiplicative product of popula-
tion, affluence and technology, hence adopted and innovatively
modified to model the relationship between technological inno-
vation and green growth. The MLR method was employed because
it aids in avoiding non-optimal combination of regressors. The IPAT
and STIRPAT equations primarily presented as;
Ii ¼ aPic Ani Tim ei
where a represent the constant term that scales c, n and m. P A and
T represent population, affluence and technology respectively. The
subscript i represents the number of (I, P, A, T and e) in each panel.
This study, further modelled the impact of energy used by the
two sectors and their impact on green growth.
Three models (expressed in equation 2e5), are developed based
on total CO2 emissions, demand-based CO2 emissions, production-
based CO2 emissions, industrial energy consumption, transport
energy consumption and a selected climate change related tech-
nologies. The essence is to identify how these selected climate
change related technologies have improved green growth in to-
tality, production based-emissions and demand-based emissions.
The first model of this study examined the impact of a selected
climate change related technologies and other determinants on
green growth in totality based on the STIRPAT model, thus total CO2
emissions following (Luo et al., 2016, 2017; van der Ploeg and
Withagen, 2013).
lnCO2it ¼ a0 þ b1 lnTTECit þ b2 lnINECit þ b3 lnERDBit
þ b4 lnTECTTit þ b5 lnTECEGit þ Uit
the natural logs of all the variables were taken hence ln represents
the natural logarithm forms for the variables. CO2 is the dependent
variable. Here, the study considered the total CO2 emissions. Beta b1
to b5 represent the coefficients values for the predictors. TTEC
represent energy consumption in transport, INEC on the other hand
is industrial energy consumption, ERDB represents environmen-
tally related budget by government, TECTT and TECEG examine the
contributions of climate change technologies related to transport
and to energy generation, transmission or distribution to environ-
mental quality.
The second model examined the impact of a selected climate
change related technologies and other factors on green growth
contribution from production-based CO2 emissions based on
(Bekun et al., 2019; Ma et al., 2018; Mardones and Flores, 2018;
Mensah et al., 2018).
lnPbCO2it ¼ a0 þ b1 lnINECit þ b2 lnRESit þ b3 lnENTXit
þ b4 lnTTPPit þ b5 lnTECEGit þ Uit
The second model considers the impact of production activities
3
Source
World Development Indicators
OECD statistics
OECD statistics
OECD statistics
OECD statistics
OECD statistics
OECD statistics
OECD statistics
OECD statistics
OECD statistics
OECD statistics
on green growth, hence an examination of the effect of INEC (in-
dustrial energy consumption), lnRES (renewable energy supply),
ENTX (environmentally related taxes), TTPP (Climate change miti-
gation technologies in the production or processing of goods) and
TECEG (Climate change mitigation technologies related to energy
generation, transmission or distribution) on PbCO2 production
based emissions. Here, it is presumed that industries rely on
(1) renewable energies in their pursuit for green growth hence
consideration of the supply of renewable energies.
The final equation examined demand-based CO2 emissions in
relation to green growth following (Bagheri et al., 2018; Kim et al.,
2014; Salahuddin et al., 2015). This was based on the a modified
IPAT equation written as;
lnDbCO2it ¼ a0 þ b1 lnTTPPit þ b2 lnTECTTit þ b3 lnTTECit
þ b4 lnTECEGit þ Uit (4)
The third model considers the impact of consumer demand on
green growth, hence an examination of the effect of the contribu-
tions of TTEC (Energy consumption in transport), TTPP (Climate
change mitigation technologies in the production or processing of
goods) TECTT (climate change technologies related to transport),
and TECEG (Climate change mitigation technologies related to en-
ergy generation, transmission or distribution) to demand based
emissions (dbco2) is considered in the final model.
3. Results
(2) 3.1. Cross-section dependence test
The probability that a panel dataset exhibit substantial cross-
sectional dependence may be due to the presence of common
shocks and undetected components that eventually fall part of
the error term, (De Hoyos and Sarafidis, 2006). The methods
used are (Pesaran, 2004) Cross-sectional Dependence test (CD
test), Bruesch-Pegan test (Breusch, 1978) and Lagrange Multi-
plier test (Breusch and Pagan, 1980) (LM test). Test results shown
in Table 2 rejects the null hypothesis of no cross-section
dependence in almost all the variables for the panel and sub-
panels except energy consumption for the transport in the to-
tal panel.
3.2. Panel unit root test
For a given panel data, it is necessary to conduct panel unit root
test to avoid spurious regression results. Im, Pesaran and Shin W-
stat (Im et al., 2003), Augmented Dickey Fuller (ADF) (Dickey and
(3) Fuller, 1979) and PhillipsePerron (PP) (Phillips and Perron, 1988)
unit root tests were conducted. From Table 3, it is observed that at
level some of the variables have no unit root, however at 1st
4 C.N. Mensah et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 240 (2019) 118204

Table 2
Cross-section dependence test.

REGION Variable Breusch-Pagan LM Pesaran scaled LM Pesaran CD LM

OECD PANEL CO2 217.63(0.08)* 0.39(0.70) 1.170(0.24)

PBCO2 864.53(0.00)*** 33.58(0.00)*** 9.31(0.00)***
DBCO2 2462.43(0.00)*** 115.55(0.00)*** 48.65(0.00)***
RES 1571.46(0.00)*** 69.84(0.00)*** 35.08(0.00)***
ENTX 230.66(0.02)** 1.06(0.29) 0.41(0.68)
ENBD 574.33(0.00)*** 18.69(0.00)*** 5.88(0.00)***
TTEC 211.49(0.14) 0.08(0.94) 1.194(0.23)
INEC 211.59(0.04)** 0.08(0.93) 1.08(0.02)**
TECTT 1153.42(0.00)*** 48.40(0.00)*** 28.04(0.00)***
TECPP 1115.75(0.00)*** 46.46(0.00)*** 30.78(0.00)***
TECEG 1799.63(0.00)*** 81.55(0.00)*** 41.25(0.00)***
OECD AMERICA CO2 0.11(0.74) 2.04(0.04)** 2.11(0.03)**
PBCO2 0.50(0.48) 1.77(0.07)* 1.84(0.06)*
DBCO2 14.99(0.00)*** 8.48(0.00)*** 3.87(0.00)***
RES 11.19(0.00)*** 5.79(0.00)*** 5.72(0.00)***
ENTX 0.09(0.77) 2.06(0.03)** 2.13(0.03)**
ENBD 5.62(0.02)** 1.85(0.06)* 1.78(0.07)**
TTEC 0.33(0.57) 1.89(0.05)** 1.96(0.05)**
INEC 0.25(0.61) 1.94(0.05)** 2.02(0.04)**
TECTT 2.62(0.10) 0.27(0.79) 1.62(0.01)***
TECPP 12.72(0.00)*** 6.87(0.00)*** 3.57(0.00)***
TECEG 8.77(0.00)*** 4.07(0.00)*** 4.01(0.00)***
OECD ASIA CO2 5.00(0.17) 0.40(0.68) 1.77(0.08)*
PBCO2 15.36(0.00)*** 3.82(0.00)*** 3.75(0.00)***
DBCO2 44.99(0.00)*** 15.92(0.00)*** 6.70(0.00)***
RES 14.46(0.00)*** 3.45(0.00)*** 0.43(0.66)
ENTX 6.51(0.08)* 0.20(0.83) 1.54(0.12)
ENBD 7.85(0.04)** 0.76(0.45) 1.39(0.16)
TTEC 6.03(0.01)*** 0.01(0.99) 0.09(0.02)**
INEC 6.32(0.09)* 0.13(0.89) 2.17(0.03)**
TECTT 34.27(0.00)*** 11.54(0.00)*** 11.43(0.00)***
TECPP 17.51(0.00)*** 4.70(0.00)*** 3.76(0.00)***
TECEG 16.73(0.00)*** 4.38(0.00)*** 3.41(0.00)***
OECD EUROPE CO2 93.61(0.10) 0.21(0.83) 1.28(0.02)**
PBCO2 479.46(0.00)*** 31.10(0.00)*** 15.42(0.00)***
DBCO2 1032.16(0.00)*** 75.35(0.00)*** 31.49(0.00)***
RES 762.91(0.00)*** 53.79(0.00)*** 26.44(0.00)***
ENTX 92.39(0.13) 0.11(0.91) 0.86(0.03)**
ENBD 281.73(0.00)*** 15.27(0.00)*** 2.17(0.03)**
TTEC 94.74(0.09)* 0.29(0.76) 0.56(0.58)
INEC 93.55(0.11) 0.20(0.84) 0.59(0.05)**
TECTT 522.26(0.00)*** 34.53(0.00)*** 21.46(0.00)***
TECPP 498.62(0.00)*** 32.64(0.00)*** 20.92(0.00)***
TECEG 795.33(0.00)*** 56.39(0.00)*** 27.85(0.00)***
OECD OCEANIA CO2 1.37(0.24) 1.16(0.05)* 1.17(0.24)
PBCO2 0.41(0.52) 1.83(0.07)** 1.90(0.06)*
DBCO2 14.99(0.00)*** 8.48(0.00)*** 3.87(0.00)***
RES 5.95(0.01)*** 2.09(0.04)** 2.44(0.01)***
ENTX 1.06(0.30) 1.37(0.07)* 1.03(0.03)**
ENBD 1.58(0.21) 1.01(0.31) 1.25(0.01)***
TTEC 1.09(0.30) 1.35(0.08)* 1.04(0.03)**
INEC 1.17(0.28) 1.29(0.02)** 1.08(0.08)*
TECTT 0.44(0.50) 1.81(0.07)* 1.88(0.06)*
TECPP 5.84(0.02)** 2.01(0.04)** 2.42(0.02)**
TECEG 11.75(0.00)*** 6.19(0.00)*** 3.43(0.00)***

***,**,* represents 1%, 5% and 10% significance level respectively. Test passed at 1%, 5% and 10%. The parenthesis ( ) denote p-value and left of the parenthesis, t-statistics values.

difference, all the variables turned stationary leading to rejection of
the null hypothesis of presence of unit root.
3.3. Westerlund panel cointegration
Westerlund cointegration test was employed to examine the
long-run relationship among the variables in the three models of
study. A lag of one is selected for this test following the lag selection
criteria and results, presented in Tables 4e6. It can be seen that
either a p-value or robust p-values proved an existence of long-run
relationship among variables, thus variables are cointegrated.
3.4. Results of the STIRPAT model
Our first model examined green growth based on the STIRPAT
model. The focus of the first model was to examine total CO2
emissions as a measure for green growth. Results are reported in
Table 7. From the fourth column of Table 7, it is observed that en-
ergy consumption in transport in OECD America, Oceania and Asia
are detrimental to green growth from the coefficient values. A
percentage increase in energy consumption in transport exerts
negative impact on the environment by 1.91%, 1.38% and 1.29%
respectively by these sub-regions. This confirms the findings of
(Kharbach and Chfadi, 2017) that transport energy consumption
 C.N. Mensah et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 240 (2019) 118204 5

Table 3
Panel unit root test.

REGION Variable Level ADF PP 1st Difference ADF PP

Im, Pesaran and Shin Im, Pesaran and Shin W-stat

W-stat

OECD PANEL CO2 6.29(0.00)*** 119.61(0.00)*** 151.07(0.00)*** 8.48(0.00)*** 145.86(0.00)*** 302.49(0.00)***

PBCO2 22.78(0.00) 36.12(0.65) 52.33(0.09)* 30.48(0.00)*** 108.54(0.00)*** 213.08(0.00)***
DBCO2 4.66(1.00) 7.64(1.00) 10.25(0.00)*** 3.87(0.00)*** 74.48(0.00)*** 155.84(0.00)***
RES 56.42(0.00) 33.18(0.77) 40.28(0.45) 75.83(0.00)*** 115.60(0.00)*** 229.01(0.00)***
ENTX 7.07(0.00) 126.17(0.00) 194.28(0.00)*** 8.68(0.00)*** 148.23(0.00)*** 336.03(0.00)***
ENBD 9.79(0.00) 67.11(0.00)*** 41.06(0.42) 9.72(0.00)*** 115.32(0.00)*** 189.05(0.00)***
TTEC 8.51(0.00) 146.02(0.00)*** 195.38(0.00)*** 9.49(0.00)*** 160.92(0.00)*** 325.48(0.00)***
INEC 7.93(0.00) 141.39(0.00)*** 188.83(0.00)** 9.18(0.00)*** 156.15(0.00)*** 326.98(0.00)***
TECTT 0.48(0.31) 38.92(0.52) 71.99(0.00)*** 5.89(0.00)*** 124.60(0.00)*** 289.68(0.00)***
TTPP 0.90(0.18) 41.44(0.40) 85.73(0.00)*** 4.25(0.00)*** 94.50(0.00)*** 207.86(0.00)***
TECEG 0.97(0.17) 41.14(0.42) 53.07(0.08)* 0.59(0.27) 53.51(0.07)* 141.09(0.00)***
OECD OCEANIA CO2 3.82(0.00) 20.32(0.00)*** 38.76(0.00)*** 4.49(0.00)*** 23.25(0.00)*** 44.99(0.00)***
PBCO2 0.28(0.38) 3.80(0.43) 8.10(0.08)* 0.68(0.75) 2.09(0.72) 12.08(0.01)***
DBCO2 1.61(0.95) 0.42(0.98) 0.49(0.97) 1.25(0.10) 7.58(0.10) 15.28(0.00)***
RES 1.77(0.96) 0.48(0.97) 2.12(0.71) 1.74(0.04)** 10.12(0.04)** 27.75(0.00)***
ENTX 4.35(0.00)*** 22.87(0.00)*** 49.54(0.00)*** 5.29(0.00)*** 26.78(0.00)*** 51.65(0.00)***
ENBD 0.14(0.44) 3.37(0.49) 3.43(0.49) 1.16(0.13) 7.16(0.12) 11.49(0.02)**
TTEC 3.93(0.00)*** 20.88(0.00)*** 43.69(0.00)*** 4.68(0.00)*** 24.17(0.00)*** 48.62(0.00)***
INEC 3.89(0.00)*** 20.71(0.00)*** 44.88(0.00)*** 4.66(0.00)*** 24.09(0.00)*** 49.18(0.00)***
TECTT 0.15(0.44) 3.18(0.52) 5.90(0.20) 1.52(0.06)* 8.79(0.06)* 22.62(0.00)***
TTPP 1.63(0.05)** 9.28(0.05)** 10.86(0.02)** 2.51(0.00)*** 13.67(0.01)*** 28.51(0.00)***
TECEG 0.03(0.48) 2.85(0.58) 7.92(0.09)* 0.04(0.51) 2.78(0.59) 14.14(0.00)***
OECD EUROPE CO2 4.01(0.00)*** 67.22(0.00)*** 77.56(0.00)*** 6.21(0.00)*** 87.49(0.00)*** 196.10(0.00)***
PBCO2 28.34(0.00)*** 25.01(0.51)*** 19.54(0.81) 36.55(0.00)*** 83.06(0.00)*** 150.76(0.00)***
DBCO2 3.59(0.99) 6.16(1.00) 5.02(1.00) 3.12(0.00)*** 48.45(0.00)*** 97.57(0.00)***
RES 73.17(0.00)*** 30.48(0.25) 29.10(0.31) 91.69(0.00)*** 78.83(0.00)*** 141.28(0.00)***
ENTX 4.59(0.00)*** 68.98(0.00)*** 101.93(0.00)*** 6.40(0.00)*** 89.28(0.00)*** 211.95(0.00)***
ENBD 7.22(0.00)*** 36.24(0.08)* 19.89(0.79) 8.40(0.00)*** 65.92(0.00)*** 120.65(0.00)***
TTEC 6.48(0.00)*** 89.92(0.00)*** 104.38(0.00)*** 7.19(0.00)*** 99.07(0.00)*** 218.15(0.00)***
INEC 5.88(0.00)*** 86.93(0.00)*** 101.74(0.00)*** 7.06(0.00)*** 97.38(0.00)*** 222.95(0.00)***
TECTT 0.10(0.54) 20.42(0.77) 43.43(0.01)*** 6.08(0.00)*** 97.22(0.00)*** 203.70(0.00)***
TTPP 0.64(0.26) 25.15(0.51) 41.64(0.02)** 3.54(0.00)*** 60.70(0.00)*** 126.26(0.00)***
TECEG 0.41(0.34) 22.94(0.63) 23.57(0.60) 0.26(0.60) 27.57(0.38) 88.25(0.00)***
OECD AMERICA CO2 1.43(0.07)* 8.32(0.08)* 10.02(0.04)** 2.89(0.02)** 15.56(0.00)*** 25.93(0.00)***
PBCO2 0.15(0.56) 3.11(0.54) 2.47(0.65) 2.57(0.01)*** 13.99(0.01)*** 29.03(0.00)***
DBCO2 1.62(0.94) 0.41(0.98) 0.49(0.97) 1.26(0.10) 7.61(0.11) 15.27(0.00)***
RES 1.80(0.96) 0.32(0.98) 0.54(0.96) 2.70(0.00)*** 14.68(0.00)*** 41.73(0.00)***
ENTX 1.93(0.02)** 10.73(0.03)** 12.40(0.01)*** 4.09(0.00)*** 21.022(0.00)*** 30.78(0.00)***
ENBD 0.95(0.17) 6.34(0.17) 23.07(0.00)*** 2.32(0.01)*** 13.71(0.008)* 28.60(0.00)***
TTEC 1.62(0.05)** 9.25(0.05)** 11.96(0.02)** 3.95(0.00)*** 20.43(0.00)*** 29.56(0.00)***
INEC 1.78(0.04)** 10.05(0.04)** 12.29(0.02)** 4.048(0.00)*** 20.76(0.00)*** 28.87(0.00)***
TECTT 1.12(0.13) 7.15(0.13) 10.54(0.03)** 1.96(0.02)** 11.02(0.03)** 11.65(0.02)**
TTPP 0.36(0.64) 1.89(0.75) 7.50(0.11) 1.24(0.09)* 1.12(0.09)* 2.16(0.07)*
TECEG 0.22(0.59) 2.51(0.64) 3.80(0.43) 1.12(0.13) 15.95(0.00)*** 8.15(0.08)*
OECD ASIA CO2 2.62(0.00)*** 17.74(0.01)*** 19.57(0.00)*** 2.23(0.01)*** 15.46(0.02)** 25.98(0.00)***
PBCO2 0.33(0.63) 4.14(0.66) 4.45(0.62) 0.86(0.19) 8.06(0.03)** 17.44(0.01)***
DBCO2 1.98(0.98) 0.63(0.99) 0.74(0.99) 1.55(0.06)* 11.46(0.08)* 22.98(0.00)***
RES 2.93(0.99) 2.04(0.92) 1.70(0.94) 1.19(0.12) 11.44(0.08)* 21.78(0.00)***
ENTX 3.09(0.00)*** 20.68(0.00)*** 21.95(0.00)*** 2.75(0.00)*** 18.57(0.01)*** 40.99(0.00)***
ENBD 0.45(0.32) 6.88(0.33) 8.94(0.17) 2.79(0.00)*** 18.79(0.00)*** 30.59(0.00)***
TTEC 2.59(0.00)*** 17.56(0.01)*** 19.39(0.00)*** 2.12(0.02)** 14.96(0.02)** 23.82(0.00)***
INEC 2.62(0.00)*** 17.72(0.01)*** 17.63(0.01)*** 2.09(0.02)** 14.80(0.02)** 21.56(0.00)***
TECTT 1.30(0.09)* 10.06(0.12) 6.46(0.37) 0.26(0.60) 7.84(0.25) 25.38(0.00)***
TTPP 0.44(0.33) 5.93(0.43) 12.91(0.04)** 0.98(0.16) 10.43(0.10) 34.10(0.00)***
TECEG 1.71(0.04)** 12.66(0.04)** 12.63(0.05)** 0.16(0.56) 6.65(0.35) 22.74(0.00)***

***,**,* represents 1%, 5% and 10% significance level respectively. Test passed at 1%, 5% and 10%. The parenthesis ( ) denote p-value and left of the parenthesis, t-statistics values.

pollutes the environment. Observed from the fourth column of
Table 7, energy used by industries in the entire OECD impedes
green growth but the negative impact for the Europe sub-panel is
outstanding, visible from the coefficient values, of 0.52% and 0.66%
correspondingly. This confirms the assertion that industries in-
crease CO2 emissions level (Zhang et al., 2019). On the other hand,
Oceania sub-region's industrial energy consumption improves
green growth.
Environmentally related budget has been found necessary in the
pursuit of green growth from the coefficient values of the total
panel, Oceania and Europe sub-panels. With coefficient values of
0.07%, 0.03% and 0.09%, correspondingly, environmentally related
budget promotes green growth. From model 1, technological
innovation exerts positive impact on green growth, a reflection in
the negative coefficient signs. However, a significant impact is seen
in OECD Oceania where a unit increase in climate change tech-
nologies in relation to transport enhances green growth by 0.16%.
Technologies for generation and supply of energy prove detri-
mental to green growth in OECD Europe sub-region by 0.22%.
6 C.N. Mensah et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 240 (2019) 118204

Table 4 Table 6
Panel Westerlund Cointegration test for model 1. Panel Westerlund Cointegration test for model 3.

REGION Statistics Value P-value Robust p-value REGION Statistics Value p-value Robust p-value

OECD PANEL Gt 4.26 0.00*** 0.01*** OECD PANEL Gt 1.75 0.06* 0.06*
Ga 5.25 0.99 0.01** Ga 5.12 0.72 0.06*
Pt 14.10 0.00*** 0.01*** Pt 7.50 0.01*** 0.02**
Pa 4.30 0.87 0.01*** Pa 2.82 0.38 0.15
OECD AMERICA Gt 4.01 0.00*** 0.03** OECD AMERICA Gt 3.13 0.00*** 0.01***
Ga 7.23 0.701 0.01*** Ga 9.22 0.19 0.05**
Pt 5.81 0.00 0.02** Pt 4.59 0.01*** 0.00***
Pa 7.31 0.41 0.00*** Pa 9.57 0.02 0.03**
OECD ASIA Gt 3.50 0.00 0.01 OECD ASIA Gt 1.80 0.09* 0.23
Ga 7.65 0.52 0.04** Ga 4.65 0.37 0.08*
Pt 5.29 0.01*** 0.01* Pt 2.57 0.07* 0.32
Pa 7.14 0.22 0.03** Pa 5.59 0.00*** 0.16
OECD EUROPE Gt 5.46 0.00*** 0.14 OECD EUROPE Gt 1.12 0.99 0.00***
Ga 3.36 1.00 0.01*** Ga 1.78 1.00 0.00***
Pt 11.22 0.00*** 0.06* Pt 3.68 0.95 0.00***
Pa 2.96 0.99 0.04** Pa 1.71 0.99 0.00***
OCEANIA Gt 3.57 0.02** 0.05** OECD OCEANIA Gt 0.35 0.97 0.00***
Ga 6.44 0.75 0.00*** Ga 0.68 0.95 0.00***
Pt 4.82 0.02** 0.03*** Pt 0.84 0.78 0.00***
Pa 6.52 0.47 0.00*** Pa 0.93 0.77 0.00***

***,**,* represents 1%, 5% and 10% significance level respectively. Test passed at 1%, ***,**,* represents 1%, 5% and 10% significance level respectively. Test passed at 1%,
5% and 10%. The parenthesis ( ) denote p-value and left of the parenthesis, t-statistics 5% and 10%. The parenthesis ( ) denote p-value and left of the parenthesis, t-statistics
values. values.

Table 5 environmental downgrade of 1.85% and 0.26% respectively per a

Panel Westerlund Cointegration test for model 2. unit increase in renewable energy supply for industrial activities.
REGION Statistics Value P-value Robust p- Asia sub-region's industrial positive contribution to green growth
value of 1.21% is due to a unit increase in renewable energy supply,
OECD PANEL Gt 4.26 0.00*** 0.01*** confirming the findings of (Lin and Raza, 2019). Environmentally
Ga 5.25 0.99 0.01*** related tax reduces production-based emission, hence beneficial to
Pt 14.10 0.00*** 0.01*** green growth in the OECD. The entire panel's green growth is
Pa 4.30 0.87 0.01*** improved by 0.31% when environmental related taxes are
OECD AMERICA Gt 0.65 0.04** 0.07*
increased. This is consistent with the findings of (Mackenzie et al.,
Ga 0.39 0.92 0.83
Pt 0.28 0.08* 0.81 2017; Niu et al., 2018). Technological innovation in relation to
Pa 0.04 0.76 0.84 production and processing of goods has a mixed effect as seen in
OECD ASIA Gt 3.50 0.00*** 0.01*** the coefficient values from Table 8. A positive feedback of 1.36% is
Ga 7.65 0.52 0.04**
observed in the Asia sub-panel when environmentally related taxes
Pt 5.29 0.01*** 0.01***
Pa 7.14 0.22 0.03** get increased. In the sub-panels of Oceania and Europe an increase
OECD EUROPE Gt 0.12 1.00 0.95 in climate change related technologies in relation to production
Ga 1.53 1.00 0.87 and processing of goods leads to increased production-based
Pt 23.94 0.00*** 0.01*** pollution by 0.61% and 0.39% respectively but the reverse is found
Pa 12.08 0.00*** 0.02**
in the Asia sub-region where an increase in such technologies im-
OECD OCEANIA Gt 0.39 0.99 0.03**
Ga 0.06 0.94 0.93 proves industrial emissions by 1.36%. Technological innovation for
Pt 0.42 0.05** 0.87 energy generation and transmission proves detrimental to green
Pa 0.04 0.77 0.83 growth of Asia sub-panel. The positive findings of technological
***,**,* represents 1%, 5% and 10% significance level respectively. Test passed at 1%, innovation on green growth confirm the findings of (Lin and Xu,
5% and 10%. The parenthesis ( ) denote p-value and left of the parenthesis, t-statistics 2018; Yu and Du, 2019).
values.

3.5. Results of multiple linear regression

The second model focused on productionebased CO2 emissions
as a measure of green growth using the multiple linear regression
(MLR) estimation method. From Table 8, it is observed that a unit
increase in industrial energy consumption escalates production-
based emissions at the total panel level by 0.29%. Also, OECD
Europe's inability to reduce its production-based emissions can be
explained by 0.36% increase in industrial energy use. This confirms
the findings of (Ma et al., 2019; Rahman and Kashem, 2017).
Renewable energy supply has a mixed impact on green growth in
the OECD economies, considering production activities. In the
entire OECD economies, a percentage increase of 0.37% to industrial
pollution is attributable to increase supply of renewable energy.
The sub-panels of America and Europe equally experience
3.6. Results for the IPAT model
Table 9 presents the findings of the impact of technological
innovation on demand-based emissions. This model was examined
based on the IPAT model. From Table 9, a significant relationship is
only observed in the Asia sub-panel where an increase in climate
change technologies for transport improves demand-based emis-
sions by 4.26%. This confirms the results of (Huang et al., 2018; Xu
et al., 2017). Transport energy consumption in the OECD America
sub-panel is a positive contributor to green growth by 2.72%.
Technological innovation in relation to production and processing
of goods are detrimental to green growth in the OECD entire panel
by 1.16%.
 C.N. Mensah et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 240 (2019) 118204 7

Table 7
Results of STIRPAT model.

REGION R2 Constant TTEC INEC ENBD TECTT TTEG

PANEL 0.75 1.72(0.76) 0.09(0.12) 0.52(0.12)*** 0.07(0.02)*** 0.03(0.07) 0.06(0.08)

OECD America 0.97 12.64(1.48) 1.91(0.82)** 0.90(0.82) 0.05(0.03)** 0.13(0.31) 0.22(0.30)
OECD Oceania 0.97 8.54(0.91) 1.38(0.16)*** 0.51(0.15)*** 0.03(0.02)* 0.16(0.09)* 0.01(0.11)
OECD Asia 0.97 14.67(4.45) 1.29(0.48)*** 0.28(0.48) 0.15(0.24) 0.11(0.14) 0.11(0.13)
OECD Europe 0.70 0.23(0.97) 0.14(0.19) 0.66(0.20)*** 0.09(0.02)*** 0.02(0.08) 0.22(0.11)**

*,**,*** denotes significance at 1%, 5% and 10% respectively. The parenthesis ( ) denotes standard error.

Table 8
Results of Multiple Linear Regression analysis.

REGION R2 Constant INEC RES ENTX TTPP TTEG

PANEL 0.30 13.1(1.55) 0.29(0.08)*** 0.37(0.08)*** 0.31(0.08) *** 0.03(0.10) 0.10(0.10)

OECD America 0.94 12.42(10.37) 0.27(0.39) 1.85(0.64)*** 0.31(0.39) 0.02(0.19) 0.17(0.21)
OECD Oceania 0.85 19.15(12.86) 0.21(0.15) 0.17(0.85) 0.28(0.20) 0.61(0.17)*** 0.23(0.22)
OECD Asia 0.89 33.55(3.02) 0.08(0.11) 1.21(0.24)*** 0.05(0.13) 1.36(0.27)*** 1.52(0.17)***
OECD Europe 0.60 15.4(1.31) 0.36(0.07)*** 0.26(0.07)*** 0.44(0.07) 0.39(0.08)*** 0.03(0.08)

*,**,*** denotes significance at 1%, 5% and 10% respectively. The parenthesis ( ) denotes standard error.

Table 9
Report for IPAT model.

REGION R2 Constant TTEC TTPP TECTT TTEG

PANEL 0.12 14.51(5.52) 0.06(0.23) 1.16(0.63)* 0.61(0.58) 0.59(0.63)

OECD America 0.52 90.06(25.07) 2.72(0.96)*** 3.75(4.31) 1.04(5.50) 3.49(4.78)
OECD Oceania 0.24 25.56(15.58) 0.45(0.65) 2.58(2.43) 2.22(1.72) 0.45(0.65)
OECD Asia 0.30 9.56(17.54) 0.34(0.73) 1.25(1.87) 4.26(2.34)* 1.99(2.40)
OECD Europe 0.16 9.85(5.99) 0.36(0.26) 0.06(0.85) 0.00(0.64) 0.82(0.71)

*,**,*** denotes significance at 1%, 5% and 10% respectively. The parenthesis ( ) denotes standard error.

4. Discussions Environmental related budget is beneficial to green growth,

This study examined the impact of technological innovation on
green growth in the OECD economies from three different
perspective; general environmental pollution from all sectors,
which are total CO2 emissions, production-based emissions and
demand-based emission on green growth. Based on the STIRPAT,
IPAT and multiple linear regression (MLR) methods, it was estab-
lished that transport energy consumption is detrimental to green
growth which is consistent with the findings of (Raza et al., 2019;
Rehermann and Pablo-Romero, 2018; Wang and Lin, 2019). The
possible implication is that, the transport sector of all the OECD
sub-regions except for OECD Europe rely on energy from non-
renewable source to fuel vehicles and other transport facilities
which in turn generate high emissions (Raza et al., 2019). In in-
stances where electric vehicles are used, electricity for recharging
vehicles is more likely generated from non-renewable energy or
fossil fuel which has a damaging effect on the environment (Hanif
et al., 2019; Mensah et al., 2019).
Industrial energy consumption is seen to be detrimental to
green growth in the OECD total panel and the Europe sub-region.
Possibly, industries mostly rely on fossil fuels which demote
green growth. This explains why industrial energy consumption
negatively correlates with green growth. Biotechnology utilization
in the energy industry will reduce reliance on fossil fuel. As high-
lighted by Marousek (2014), biotechnology complex energy utili-
zation can be streamlined with grass silage partition which is
environmentally friendly. On the contrary, green growth in the
OECD Oceania sub-region can be explained by a likely switch to
cleaner energy for industrial activities. The negative coefficient
values for the America and Asia sub-regions is a pointer that they
are closer to achieving green growth through a gradual switch to
clean energy.
evident in our findings from the total OECD panel, OECD Oceania
and OECD Europe. Environmentally-damaging subsidies for energy
production and consumption are taken care of with green budget.
The institution of the Green Budget Reform by the European Union
could be responsible for this improvement in the OECD Europe sub-
region. Incentives are created which move both producers and
consumers away from deteriorating the environment under this
policy (Schlegelmilch, 1999). This confirms the assertion of Frondel
et al. (2008), that budget for R&D matters because it promotes
technological innovation, consequently, promoting green growth.
With environmentally related budget, the chances of firms culti-
vating proactive environmental practices increases, (Darnall et al.,
2010). Environmentally related taxes are also beneficial to green
growth because high tax brackets posed on industries control their
rate of pollution. The polluter pays principle is seen to be working
in the OECD economies.
This study utilized three climate change related technologies.
These are transport technologies, energy generation and trans-
mission technologies as well as technologies for the production and
processing of goods. Evident from the findings, transport related
technologies have the potential of promoting green growth but has
not reached a point where its significant contribution is visible.
Although not significantly related to green growth in all the sub-
regions, except for OECD Oceania, the negative coefficient values
for the other sub-regions, is an indication that this technology is
almost at the point of enhancing green growth. This is consistent
with the findings of (Namdeo et al., 2019).
Technologies for generation and transmission of energy have
not yet revealed beneficial signs in promoting green growth in the
OECD economies. This is obvious from the positive but insignificant
coefficient values for the entire panel and all the sub-regions except
for the Asia sub-region. Evident in the study of Martínez-García
8 C.N. Mensah et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 240 (2019) 118204
et al. (2018), some energy generation technologies do not promote
green growth. On one hand, these technologies could be limited in
use and on the other hand, the few invented are not capable of
addressing climate change issues well enough. This means that the
expected results of innovation on climate change is not observed,
hence the rebound effect where innovation could not achieve its
expected outcome.
Climate change technologies for producing and processing of
goods exhibit a mixed effect. These technologies in the Asia sub-
region are seen to be tremendously promoting green growth. This
is an indication such technologies invented by this sub-region are
cleaner technologies and adequately addressing environmental
concerns. These technologies are contributing to cleaner produc-
tion, consequently, green growth. However, in the Oceania and
Europe sub-regions, these technologies impede green growth. Most
likely, technological spill-over effect is lacking here. Patent owners
are reluctant to transfer their technologies. It should be noted that,
in the climate change battle, focus should not lost on the fact that
technological innovation loses its impact on climate mitigation if
not diffused as Adenle et al. (2015), considers such activity as an
essential aspect in embarking on the challenges of mitigation.
Globally, expectations are that improvement in innovation and
technology would offer the best prospects in creating green econ-
omies, (Fortune, 2019). Environmental deterioration in the face of
technological innovation is reluctance on the path of patent holders
to transfer technologies. One other likely reason is due to the fact
that some green technologies invented are not diffused since in-
ventors have not patented such technologies or protected them
with intellectual properties (IPs) therefore diffusing them make
them loose authority over such innovations. Diffusing such tech-
nologies means inventors loose profit of invention. However one of
the successful ways to green growth is by diffusing limited patented
technologies to high polluting sectors who do not possess them.
On the whole, it can be inferred that Oceania sub-region has
been effective in the pursuit of green growth from the first model.
This sub-region has been able to control total CO2 emissions with
industrial energy consumption, environmentally related budget
and climate change technologies for transport. The Asia sub-panel
has also been the most effect in the pursuit of green growth with
regards to production-based emissions as two of the determinants
of production-based emissions which are renewable energy supply
and climate change related technologies for production and pro-
cessing of goods are statistically significant unlike the other sub-
groups which had one variable being significantly related to
production-based emissions. With reference to demand-based
emissions, America and Asia sub-regions have proven to be most
effective in reducing demand-based emissions. America has been
able to control its demand-based emissions through transport en-
ergy consumption and Asia has also been able to control its
demand-based emissions through their technologies for transport.
5. Conclusion
Pursuing green growth is the ultimate solution for climate
change battle. This study examined the impact of climate change
technologies in relation to energy generation and supply, produc-
tion and processing of food and then technologies for transport on
green growth in twenty-eight (28) OECD economies using a panel
data set over the period of 2000e2014. This period was chosen due
to data availability. The economies were categorized into four sub-
regions; OECD America, OECD Asia, OECD Europe and OECD Oce-
ania. A number of preliminary test were conducted which included
panel unit root test, Westerlund cointegration and cross-section
dependence test. This study found no existence of unit root in the
variables. Also, it was observed that, a long-run relation exist
among the variables. The STIRPAT, IPAT and multiple linear
regression (MLR) were therefore employed to examine the impact
of a selected climate change related technologies.
Empirically, it was established that; technological innovation
promotes green growth, evident in the negative coefficient values
in the first and third models. However it was confirmed that
transport related technologies in OECD Oceania sub-region has
been beneficial in the pursuit of green growth from the coefficient
value of 0.16%. Climate change technologies in relation to produc-
tion and processing of goods proved mixed effect on green growth.
OECD Oceania and Europe sub-panels increase in technologies for
production and processing of goods result in high pollution levels
of 0.61% and 0.39% respectively, demoting green growth but the
reverse is seen in the case of Asia where a positive return of 1.36% is
observed. Also, climate change technologies in relation to genera-
tion and transmission of energy make no meaningful impact to
green growth. Although not much of significant relationship is seen
in the models, the coefficient values are positive in most cases. A
significant relationship is found only in OECD Asia and Europe sub-
regions where an increase in climate change technologies for
generation and transmission of energy leads to 1.52% and 0.22%
environmental deterioration. To promote green growth in the
phase of insufficient patents granted, policies protecting inventions
and technological transfer should be instituted to allow inventors
benefit fully from their innovations. In this case, diffusing tech-
nologies to promote green growth would not become a problem, in
the face of assured benefits.
Other factors also stimulate green growth, evident in this study.
It was observed that environmentally related R&D budget and taxes
promotes green growth although not significant in most of sub-
regions. Environmentally related budget at the total panel level,
OECD Oceania and OECD Europe sub-panels has be found to be
beneficial in the pursuit of green growth observed from the coef-
ficient values of 0.07% 0.03% and 0.09% correspondingly. Environ-
mentally related tax is seen to enhance green growth as well from
the total panel level with a co-efficient value of 0.31%. A mixed
effect is experienced with the remaining factors. Renewable energy
supply has been detrimental to green growth at the panel level by
0.37%, OECD America by 1.85% and Europe sub-regions by 0.26% but
has proved to be helpful in promoting green growth in OECD Asia
sub-region by 1.21% coefficient value. Energy consumption from the
transport and industrial sectors demote green growth in three sub-
panels; America, Oceania and Asia with 1.91%, 1.38% and 1.2% in that
order.
Environmentally related R&D budget and taxes should be an
object of focus for the positive impact they render on green growth.
‘Dirty industries’ should be levied huge taxes as disincentive for
environmental pollution and industries trying to adopt clean
technologies and energy levied with minimal amount of taxes as an
incentive for dirty industries to emulate.
Renewable energy supply was observed to relegate green
growth. The share of renewable energy in the primary energy mix is
largely minimal. Governments should therefore support public and
private partnership in prompting renewable energy sources
through tax exemption and environmentally related budget.
Although expensive to execute renewable energy policies, it
promises a better return on green growth.
Generally, our study found that the Oceania sub-region has been
effective in the pursuit of green growth comparatively. Therefore
other sub-regions and the non-OECD economies could emulate the
Oceania sub-region.
This study focused on OECD economies, based on the findings,
authors would like to increase the scope in the next study to cover
the developing countries as well.
 C.N. Mensah et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 240 (2019) 118204
Acknowledgement
We appreciate the financial support provided by National Nat-
ural Science Foundation of 327 China (Nos. 71603105, 71673117),
the Ministry of Education of the Republic of Korea and 328 the
National Research Foundation of Korea (No. NRF-
2018S1A5A2A03036952), Natural 329 Science Foundation of
Jiangsu, China (No. SBK2016042936), Science Foundation of 330
Ministry of Education of China (No. 16YJC790067), China Post-
doctoral Science Foundation 331 (No. 2017M610051, 2018T110054).
Nomenclature
Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development OECD
Augmented Dickey Fuller ADF
Phillip-Perron PP
Impact of Population, Affluence and Technology IPAT
Stochastic Impacts by Regression on Population, Affluence and
Technology STIRPAT
Multiple Linear Regression MLR
Pesaran Cross-sectional Dependence test Pesaran CD test
Carbon dioxide emission CO2
Lagrange Multiplier test LM test
References
Adenle, A.A., Azadi, H., Arbiol, J., 2015. Global assessment of technological innova-
tion for climate change adaptation and mitigation in developing world.
J. Environ. Manag. 161, 261e275.
Bagheri, M., Guevara, Z., Alikarami, M., Kennedy, C.A., Doluweera, G., 2018. Green
growth planning: a multi-factor energy input-output analysis of the Canadian
economy. Energy Econ. 74, 708e720.
Bekhet, H.A., Latif, N.W.A., 2018. The impact of technological innovation and
governance institution quality on Malaysia's sustainable growth: evidence from
a dynamic relationship. Technol. Soc. 54, 27e40.
Bekun, F.V., Alola, A.A., Sarkodie, S.A., 2019. Toward a sustainable environment:
nexus between CO2 emissions, resource rent, renewable and nonrenewable
energy in 16-EU countries. Sci. Total Environ. 657, 1023e1029.
Bhupendra, K.V., Sangle, S., 2015. What drives successful implementation of
pollution prevention and cleaner technology strategy? The role of innovative
capability. J. Environ. Manag. 155, 184e192.
Breusch, T.S., 1978. Testing for autocorrelation in dynamic linear models. Aust. Econ.
Pap. 17 (31), 334e355.
Breusch, T.S., Pagan, A.R., 1980. The Lagrange multiplier test and its applications to
model specification in econometrics. Rev. Econ. Stud. 47 (1), 239e253.
Chen, X., Benjaafar, S., Elomri, A., 2019. On the effectiveness of emission penalties in
decentralized supply chains. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 274 (3), 1155e1167.
Darnall, N., Henriques, I., Sadorsky, P., 2010. Adopting proactive environmental
strategy: the influence of stakeholders and firm size. J. Manag. Stud. 47 (6),
1072e1094.
De Hoyos, R.E., Sarafidis, V., 2006. Testing for cross-sectional dependence in panel-
data models. STATA J. 6 (4), 482e496.
Dickey, D.A., Fuller, W.A., 1979. Distribution of the estimators for autoregressive
time series with a unit root. J. Am. Stat. Assoc. 74 (366a), 427e431.
Dietz, T., Rosa, E.A., 1997. Effects of population and affluence on CO2 emissions. Proc.
Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 94, 175e179.
Ehrlich, P.R., Holdren, J.P., 1971. Impact of population growth. Science 171 (3977),
1212e1217.
Fortune, G., 2019. The impact of innovation and technology investments on carbon
emissions in selected Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Develop-
ment countries. J. Clean. Prod. 217, 469e483.
Frondel, M., Horbach, J., Rennings, K., 2008. What triggers environmental man-
agement and innovation? Empirical evidence for Germany. Ecol. Econ. 66 (1),
153e160.
Gotschol, A., De Giovanni, P., Esposito Vinzi, V., 2014. Is environmental management
an economically sustainable business? J. Environ. Manag. 144, 73e82.
Guo, L.l., Qu, Y., Tseng, M.-L., 2017. The interaction effects of environmental regu-
lation and technological innovation on regional green growth performance.
J. Clean. Prod. 162, 894e902.
Hanif, I., Faraz Raza, S.M., Gago-de-Santos, P., Abbas, Q., 2019. Fossil fuels, foreign
direct investment, and economic growth have triggered CO2 emissions in
emerging Asian economies: some empirical evidence. Energy 171, 493e501.
Huang, Y., Ng, E.C.Y., Zhou, J.L., Surawski, N.C., Chan, E.F.C., Hong, G., 2018. Eco-
driving technology for sustainable road transport: a review. Renew. Sustain.
Energy Rev. 93, 596e609.
Im, K.S., Pesaran, M.H., Shin, Y., 2003. Testing for unit roots in heterogeneous panels.
J. Econom. 115 (1), 53e74.
9
IPCC, 2014. Climate Change 2014: Mitigation of Climate Change: Working Group III
Contribution to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change. Cambridge University Press.
Irandoust, M., 2016. The renewable energy-growth nexus with carbon emissions
and technological innovation: evidence from the Nordic countries. Ecol. Indicat.
69, 118e125.
Kharbach, M., Chfadi, T., 2017. CO2 emissions in Moroccan road transport sector:
divisia, Cointegration, and EKC analyses. Sustain. Cities Soc. 35, 396e401.
Kim, S.E., Kim, H., Chae, Y., 2014. A new approach to measuring green growth:
application to the OECD and Korea. Futures 63, 37e48.
Koberg, E., Longoni, A., 2019. A systematic review of sustainable supply chain
management in global supply chains. J. Clean. Prod. 207, 1084e1098.
Lin, B., Raza, M.Y., 2019. Analysis of energy related CO2 emissions in Pakistan.
J. Clean. Prod. 219, 981e993.
Lin, B., Xu, M., 2018. Regional differences on CO2 emission efficiency in metallur-
gical industry of China. Energy Policy 120, 302e311.
Lin, B., Zhu, J., 2019. The Role of Renewable Energy Technological Innovation on
Climate Change: Empirical Evidence from China. Science of the Total
Environment.
Luo, X., Dong, L., Dou, Y., Li, Y., Liu, K., Ren, J., Mai, X., 2017. Factor decomposition
analysis and causal mechanism investigation on urban transport CO2 emis-
sions: comparative study on Shanghai and Tokyo. Energy Policy 107, 658e668.
Luo, X., Dong, L., Dou, Y., Liang, H., Ren, J., Fang, K., 2016. Regional disparity analysis
of Chinese freight transport CO2 emissions from 1990 to 2007: driving forces
and policy challenges. J. Transp. Geogr. 56, 1e14.
Luukkanen, J., Kaivo-oja, J., Va €ha
€kari, N., O'Mahony, T., Korkeakoski, M., Panula-
Ontto, J., et al., 2019. Green economic development in Lao PDR: a sustainability
window analysis of green growth productivity and the efficiency gap. J. Clean.
Prod. 211, 818e829.
Ma, L., Cai, B., Wu, F., Zeng, H., 2018. Hourly disaggregation of industrial CO2
emissions from Shenzhen, China. Environ. Pollut. 236, 396e404.
Ma, X., Wang, C., Dong, B., Gu, G., Chen, R., Li, Y., Li, Q., 2019. Carbon emissions from
energy consumption in China: its measurement and driving factors. Sci. Total
Environ. 648, 1411e1420.
Mackenzie, S.G., Wallace, M., Kyriazakis, I., 2017. How effective can environmental
taxes be in reducing the environmental impact of pig farming systems? Agric.
Syst. 152, 131e144.
Mardones, C., Flores, B., 2018. Effectiveness of a CO2 tax on industrial emissions.
Energy Econ. 71, 370e382.
Marousek, J., 2014. Biotechnological partition of the grass silage to streamline its
complex energy utilization. Int. J. Green Energy 11 (9), 962e968.
Martínez-García, M., Valls, A., Moreno, A., Aldea, A., 2018. A semantic multi-criteria
approach to evaluate different types of energy generation technologies. Envi-
ron. Model. Softw 110, 129e138.
Mensah, C.N., Long, X., Boamah, K.B., Bediako, I.A., Dauda, L., Salman, M., 2018. The
effect of innovation on CO2 emissions of OCED countries from 1990 to 2014.
Environ. Sci. Pollut. Control Ser. 25 (29), 29678e29698.
Mensah, I.A., Sun, M., Gao, C., Omari-Sasu, A.Y., Zhu, D., Ampimah, B.C., Quarcoo, A.,
2019. Analysis on the nexus of economic growth, fossil fuel energy consump-
tion, CO2 emissions and oil price in Africa based on a PMG panel ARDL
approach. J. Clean. Prod. 228, 161e174.
Namdeo, A., Goodman, P., Mitchell, G., Hargreaves, A., Echenique, M., 2019. Land-
use, transport and vehicle technology futures: an air pollution assessment of
policy combinations for the Cambridge Sub-Region of the UK. Cities 89,
296e307.
Niu, T., Yao, X., Shao, S., Li, D., Wang, W., 2018. Environmental tax shocks and carbon
emissions: an estimated DSGE model. Struct. Chang. Econ. Dyn. 47, 9e17.
Ouardighi, F.E., Sim, J.E., Kim, B., 2016. Pollution accumulation and abatement policy
in a supply chain. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 248 (3), 982e996.
Pesaran, M.H., 2004. General Diagnostic Tests for Cross Section Dependence in
Panels.
Phillips, P.C.B., Perron, P., 1988. Testing for a unit root in time series regression, 75
(2), 335e346.
Rahman, M.M., Kashem, M.A., 2017. Carbon emissions, energy consumption and
industrial growth in Bangladesh: empirical evidence from ARDL cointegration
and Granger causality analysis. Energy Policy 110, 600e608.
Raza, S.A., Shah, N., Sharif, A., 2019. Time frequency relationship between energy
consumption, economic growth and environmental degradation in the United
States: evidence from transportation sector. Energy 173, 706e720.
Rehermann, F., Pablo-Romero, M., 2018. Economic growth and transport energy
consumption in the Latin American and Caribbean countries. Energy Policy 122,
518e527.
Rodríguez, M., Robaina, M., Teoto nio, C., 2019. Sectoral effects of a green tax Reform
in Portugal. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 104, 408e418.
Saberi, S., 2018. Sustainable, multiperiod supply chain network model with freight
carrier through reduction in pollution stock. Transp. Res. E Logist. Transp. Rev.
118, 421e444.
Salahuddin, M., Gow, J., Ozturk, I., 2015. Is the long-run relationship between
economic growth, electricity consumption, carbon dioxide emissions and
financial development in Gulf Cooperation Council Countries robust? Renew.
Sustain. Energy Rev. 51, 317e326.
Schlegelmilch, K., 1999. Green Budget Reform in Europe: Countries at the Forefront:
with 20 Figures and 142 Tables. Springer Science & Business Media.
Shi, J., Li, H., An, H., Guan, J., Arif, A., 2019. Tracing carbon emissions embodied in
2012 Chinese supply chains. J. Clean. Prod. 226, 28e36.
10 C.N. Mensah et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 240 (2019) 118204
Stegemann, L., Ossewaarde, M., 2018. A sustainable myth: a neo-Gramscian
perspective on the populist and post-truth tendencies of the European green
growth discourse. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 43, 25e32.
Stoknes, P.E., Rockstro €m, J., 2018. Redefining green growth within planetary
boundaries. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 44, 41e49.
van der Ploeg, R., Withagen, C., 2013. Green growth, green paradox and the global
economic crisis. Environ. Innovat. Societal. Transit. 6, 116e119.
Vazquez-Brust, D., Smith, A.M., Sarkis, J., 2014. Managing the transition to critical
green growth: the ‘Green Growth State’. Futures 64, 38e50.
Wang, D.D., 2017. Do United States manufacturing companies benefit from climate
change mitigation technologies? J. Clean. Prod. 161, 821e830.
Wang, D.D., Li, S., Sueyoshi, T., 2018. Determinants of climate change mitigation
technology portfolio: an empirical study of major U.S. firms. J. Clean. Prod. 196,
202e215.
Wang, Q., Wu, J., Zhao, N., Zhu, Q., 2019. Inventory control and supply chain man-
agement: a green growth perspective. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 145, 78e85.
Wang, T., Lin, B., 2019. Fuel consumption in road transport: a comparative study of
China and OECD countries. J. Clean. Prod. 206, 156e170.
Wang, X., Shao, Q., 2019. Non-linear effects of heterogeneous environmental reg-
ulations on green growth in G20 countries: evidence from panel threshold
regression. Sci. Total Environ. 660, 1346e1354.
Westerlund, J., 2007. Testing for error correction in panel data. Oxf. Bull. Econ. Stat.
69 (6), 709e748.
Xu, Y., Li, H., Liu, H., Rodgers, M.O., Guensler, R.L., 2017. Eco-driving for transit: an
effective strategy to conserve fuel and emissions. Appl. Energy 194, 784e797.
Yao, M., Di, H., Zheng, X., Xu, X., 2018. Impact of payment technology innovations on
the traditional financial industry: a focus on China. Technol. Forecast. Soc.
Chang. 135, 199e207.
Yu, Y., Du, Y., 2019. Impact of technological innovation on CO2 emissions and
emissions trend prediction on ‘New Normal’ economy in China. Atmos. Pollut.
Res. 10 (1), 152e161.
Zhang, Y., Yuan, Z., Margni, M., Bulle, C., Hua, H., Jiang, S., Liu, X., 2019. Intensive
carbon dioxide emission of coal chemical industry in China. Appl. Energy 236,
540e550.