
==== Front
Heliyon
Heliyon
Heliyon
2405-8440
Elsevier

S2405-8440(24)12674-6
10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e36643
e36643
Research Article
Impact of green energy production for sustainable economic growth and green economic recovery
Zeng Qiao 18875090895@163.com
a⁎
Li Caixia licaixia0712@163.com
a
Magazzino Cosimo cosimo.magazzino@uniroma3.it
b
a School of Business, Chongqing College of Humanities, Science and Technology, China
b Department of Political Science, Roma Tre University, Italy
⁎ Corresponding author. 18875090895@163.com
22 8 2024
15 9 2024
22 8 2024
10 17 e3664325 2 2024
13 8 2024
20 8 2024
© 2024 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.
2024

https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/).
Green energy (GE) is frequently associated with sustainable development, which seeks to reduce global warming and its adverse effects on the environment, economy, and social justice. This study examines the impact of green energy on economic prosperity, green economic recovery, and long-term sustainability. This study analyses 33 industrialized and developing nations between 1991 and 2022 in the context of green energy, sustainable economic growth, and green economic recovery. Pooled Ordinary Least Squares (OLS), the Fixed Effects Model (FEM), and the Random Effects Model (REM) are employed for analysis, and outcomes are analyzed using the Hausman specification test. The results show that both population increase and gross domestic product per capita significantly affect sustainable development. When compared, a hike in green energy prices contributes considerably to and positively to sustainable development. These results are helpful for policymakers and newcomers interested in green energy and renewable energy sources since they provide a framework to conduct more research and develop policy.

Keywords

Green energy
Green economic recovery
Sustainable development
Natural resources
==== Body
pmc1 Introduction

“natural resources” refers to the components found on Earth that support human needs and life. Organic substances are any materials found in nature and used by people. Materials like stone, sand, gas, and coal can all be found in nature and serve as resources. Natural resources include air, sunshine, soil, and water [1].

The term “green energy” refers to power generated in a way that does not impact the surrounding ecosystem [2]. Although “green energy” and “renewable energy” are frequently employed synonymously, they have one key and occasionally unclear difference. Some alternative energy sources are not green, even though most renewable energy sources are environmentally friendly. Solar and wind power are two examples of renewable energy because they are organically replenished continually. Sustainable energy is another name for renewable energy [3]. It is possible that the processes employed to generate electricity from renewable sources, such as the construction of infrastructure, result in some carbon emissions and disqualify these sources from being termed green energy. This study is motivated by the urgent necessity to alleviate global warming and its adverse effects on the environment, economy, and social equity. The project seeks empirical evidence from 33 industrialized and developing nations between 1991 and 2022 to examine how green energy contributes to sustainable economic growth and facilitates green economic recovery. The research aims to showcase the positive impact of green energy on sustainable development through advanced econometric models. This analysis provides guidance to policymakers and researchers in developing policies that utilize renewable energy sources to ensure long-term sustainability. The study emphasizes the importance of green energy in attaining global sustainable development goals.

No one disputes that energy consumption is crucial to the growth of the industrial sector and the improvement of human welfare. The world's health is seriously threatened by the vast production of manufactured items and the excessive usage of energy resulting from the continuous demand for human resources, contributing to a worldwide environmental crisis [4]. United Nations estimates that the global population will be 60 billion in 2030 and 69 billion in 2050, which is expected to grow fast. Because of this, it is essential to take the necessary measures to preserve ecological balance [5]. Consequently, global economies are anxious to increase energy efficiency to maintain the rate of economic growth while also reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Energy conservation offers a variety of options, said [6]. Saving energy, cutting production costs, and increasing competitiveness are all benefits of an effective energy system [7].

Additionally, efficient utilization of energy resources like electrical power is a clean and dependable energy criterion, using only a tiny fraction of the overall electrical supply and producing significantly fewer emissions [8]. On June 5th, 2016, in Beijing, China, the “Energy Conservation and Renewable Energy Working Group” met, where energy efficiency was a significant topic of discussion [9]. They agreed to work together on renewable energy initiatives that would improve energy efficiency and reduce waste of natural resources. The degree to which inclusive growth and energy consumption are reflected in energy efficiency is high. It's a helpful tool for figuring out whether or not the rate of economic expansion is tied to the rate of energy development. Moreover, energy efficiency has become a crucial policy tool to tackle the two interrelated issues of secure energy supply and global warming [10]. However, the question remains: how to build a green economy, identify the systems and variables that might increase energy efficiency, and balance economic development with quality of life [11].

The modern economic age is considering several environmentally friendly initiatives, such as green energy, ecological finance, and forming a green economy, in response to expectations for sustainable development. These initiatives have the potential to be effective. Therefore, advanced countries have given up their outdated methods to create more sustainable options, prioritizing a three-step strategy (minimize, recycle, reuse). But according to Ref. [12], adopting and implementing the new notion of the green economy is simple. At the same time, green financing involves obtaining natural resources, which may be renewable or non-renewable, and investing in environmental initiatives in both the private and public sectors [13]. Adopting a sustainable energy supply is crucial for tackling climate change and attaining a future with reduced carbon emissions. Green hydrogen generated from solar photovoltaic (PV) systems offers a hopeful alternative in Ghana, where energy needs are escalating swiftly. The levelized cost of hydrogen (LCOH) is a crucial measure to assess the efficiency, cost-effectiveness, and financial feasibility of various hydrogen generation methods [14].

Consequently, in light of the benefits of green energy, it is essential to reduce barriers to accessing energy at affordable prices and work toward mitigating or eliminating any negative social repercussions. In contrast to green energy sources, which can be used for a considerable amount of time without depleting their resources or depleting the natural world, limited resources such as oil and gas lack the features required for sustainability. In addition, green energy allows for better manufacturing processes because it has fewer adverse effects on the environment than traditional energy sources while powering the same range of industrial processes [15]. As [16] point out, the primary goal of sustainable development is to ensure an ongoing supply of affordable energy for future generations while minimizing environmental impact. Therefore, Green energy encourages sustainable economic activity and raises living conditions [17]. According to Ref. [18], green energy techniques are often regarded as an excellent way to simultaneously address social, ecological, and financial crises. According to Ref. [19], there is also a tendency for this shift into green economic growth to improve job prospects in both developed and developing countries [20]. suggest that adopting sustainable resource management strategies in the BRICS countries has tangible effects on fostering ecologically sustainable economic development. The outcomes include enhanced resource efficiency, reduced environmental impact, and the general correlation between sustainable practices and economic growth. However, unsustainable demand and production are hardly unexpected in the setting of least-developed nations' pursuit of the most significant economic expansion for their nation's growth. However, due to increased resource demands relative to limited resources, even developed countries experience ecological deficits [21]. [22] argues that increasing reliance on non-renewable energy factors, such as fossil fuels, is to blame for rising carbon emissions due to the world's growing energy needs and the global economy's rapid development. Thus, rising energy needs are shown to be a critical environmental damage driver, along with increasing economic activity. Energy intensity is a vital component of sustainable economic growth. Low energy intensity promotes both environmental sustainability and economic advancement, while high energy intensity leads to ecological degradation and contributes to climate change. Hence, it is imperative to examine the correlation between energy intensity and long-term economic growth in Asian countries. Another critical factor is the green economy, which emphasizes the necessity of transitioning to sustainable production and consumption practices and promoting green jobs and innovation [23].

Additionally, the global epidemic of 2019 has highlighted the relationship between environmental changes and an increase in infectious diseases. Recommended long-term strategies are needed to ensure improved human health and ecological sustainability, which may be compromised by short-term contingencies driven by economic activity [24]. In addition to slowing down efforts to reach SDGs, the COVID-19 pandemic has taken attention away from them and towards managing the severe concerns it represents worldwide. As a result, 96 percent of country data offices for the World Bank and the United Nations have discontinued collecting data directly from the field [25]. In addition, COVID-19 has had an impact on nearly 13 of 17 SDGs. Because of the COVID-19 pandemic, we are now in a new phase in which we must confront several dangers and problems to restore economic growth and stability [26]. To address issues brought on by COVID-19, the green energy strategy may contribute to both ecological and financial stability [27]. Due to the enormous surge in healthcare costs, the pandemic sickness also had a negative impact on the economy and financial security. In addition, COVID-19 caused substantial damage to the global economy. Accordingly, new and creative regulations are needed to support green investment projects.

During a pandemic, significant risk spillovers have been seen across markets. Following COVID-19, it will be necessary to employ global development mechanisms to address problems and difficulties. Globalization has increased the speed with which information may travel worldwide, which has contributed to the rapid spread of COVID-19. According to Ref. [10], COVID-19 has generated different health, social, and economic fluctuations worldwide, making it the best example of a nation's shared issues. However, this study aims to examine how financial stability and sustainable development, including green energy, affect each other, particularly in the post-COVID-19 environment. However, the research examining the association mentioned above for the panel data is scarce [17].

This study attempts to close this gap by examining the post-COVID-19 economic prosperity, sustainable development, and green financing. To determine the impact of economic prosperity or green energy on fostering sustainability in the wake of the COVID-19 crisis, a panel of 33 modernized and industrialized nations from 1991 to 2022 has been chosen based on the extent of the pandemic. The study focuses on the following research statements:• Does higher economic growth have a negative impact on long-term sustainability?

• Do renewable energy sources must be used if we are to achieve long-term sustainability?

The rest of the study is structured in the following way: Section 2 includes a literature review, Section 3 describes the research methodology, Section 4 explains the findings of the study, and Section 5 includes a conclusion and policy implications.

2 Literature review

The concept of sustainable development includes a unique and fertile field of study for analysts, academics, policymakers, and global organizations. The value of sustainable development and methods for achieving it are detailed in a number of studies. Disaggregated models, co-evolutionary models, and neoclassical models of growth are just a few of the sustainable economic growth frameworks identified by Ref. [28]. According to the findings of a different investigation by Ref. [29], sustainable development indicators can be split into two groups: those that use a neoclassical model and those that do not.

The concept of green energy has increased significance in the field of sustainable development since it facilitates a more efficient and environmentally friendly manufacturing process. According to the United Nations Development Fund and the Department of Management, green energy is a highly stable option with the potential to promote human development by enhancing educational, health, and economic opportunities for the world's poor. The authors of a different investigation [29] described a “green economy” as a sector that relies on sustainable practices, including recycling and the use of renewable energy.

According to the research conducted by Ref. [17], economic growth and sustainability are not competing ideas. As this demonstrates that enhanced economic growth may not be beneficial for individuals if the number of people is also increasing concurrently, the debate remains as to whether one is essential for the other. Similar to how inadequate health care, starvation, and education can impede productivity and economic growth.

However, the majority of research shows that if the manufacturing process depends on energy developments that are in keeping with sustainable development goals, GDP growth can be beneficial for sustainability. About 2.5 billion people use only traditional fuels, including carbon dioxide, dung, and charcoal, to prepare food every day [30]. The need to use renewable energy techniques to promote long-term economic growth has been confirmed by Ref. [31]. As a result of its ability to reduce emissions and hence lessen negative environmental impacts, green energy is also viewed as more dependable in regard to sustainable economic development. To this end, sustainable development goals can only be attained through the utilization of renewable energy sources [32]. Concurrently, the impacts of climatic difficulties and the global economic slump have created global worries about changing the economic system by pursuing the green energy route, which may maintain ecological sustainability by decreasing the negative ecological effect [33]. The importance of green energy tools was also emphasized by Ref. [29], who advocated for the use of financial resources to fund projects related to renewable energy. Energy production is a significant cause of environmental damage, and increased financial growth promotes investments that are usually in that direction. Authorities should encourage renewable energy use and invest in green infrastructure to help introduce a sustainable economy [32]. Another study [34] agrees that energy is an essential basis for sustainability, provided that more renewable energy sources are utilized. It also discussed how the use of clean energy could enhance social and financial prospects as well as the environment. Although [33] noted that environmental issues and a lack of natural resources could dampen economic growth, they did not specify how. The potential obstacles to long-term economic growth are elaborated upon by Ref. [29]. It is argued that it is easier to attain sustainable economic expansion if there is a solid economic structure, energy sector problems, joblessness, ineffective use of resources, and pollution. Hence, it is a pressing necessity to make profitable investments, notably in the power industry, in order to maintain sustainable economic development. The usage of green energy sources has a substantial positive impact on the eco-friendly economy, according to research by Ref. [35]. Therefore, it is essential to stimulate the development of renewable energy sources so that a stable economic system may be established.

2.1 Green energy, natural resources, and sustainable development

According to numerous studies [33], natural resources play an essential part in achieving ecological sustainability. Using these resources may lead to natural resource damage and loss [36]. Woodland loss, water shortages, global warming, and a rise in waste production are only some of the environmental issues caused by the unsustainable utilization of natural resources throughout emerging and advanced countries [37]; research looks into whether or not the “resource curse” can negatively impact green economic growth across a variety of growth path situations and whether or not market-oriented organizations can minimize this effect. Specifically, a finite combined model is used to analyze panel data collected from the provinces of China during 2008 and 2018. The results point to two optimal finite mixture models, with the first model demonstrating the “resource curse” phenomenon, in which natural resources hinder environmentally friendly economic growth along growth path A. Growth path B is greener than A because of natural resources, as demonstrated by the second model, leading to the “resource blessing” phenomenon.

Using the previous generation panel data approaches [33], studied the correlation between BRICS economies' sustainable growth, green energy, natural resources, green innovation, and financial growth from 1991 to 2014. Moment's quantile regression analysis suggested that green growth affects economic growth in a distributed manner. Additionally, while the usage of green energy and natural resources are essential factors in regional financial achievement, sustainable development shows a negative relationship. From 1970 to 2019 [38], examined the effects of natural resources and financial variables like GDP growth on China's energy transition. They used Error Correction Modeling (ECM) and Autoregressive Distributed Lag (ARDL) to define the beneficial short- and long-term relationship between natural resources and GDP growth and China's renewable energy transition. Through the use of FMOLS, DOLS, and Quantile Regression (QR), we can estimate the distribution of the data.

2.2 Economic growth and long-term progress after COVID-19 period

The COVID-19 pandemic has had a significant impact on the global economy. According to the IMF (International Monetary Fund, 2021), the world's average GDP fell by 3.9 % between 2019 and 2022, marking the most significant loss since the Great Depression. Although it was predicted that the global economy would have recovered by 2021, the rise in activity has been random, and inequalities in vaccination access or availability could impede the upturn in most regions [39]. The industrialized economies may see rapid growth, while the majority of developing nations may need to catch up if the rate of growth is not uniform across nations as predicted. The relationship between renewable energy and green economic growth is complex and full of potential. Countries may effectively tackle climate change, foster sustainable development, and spur economic growth by adopting renewable energy sources. In recent decades, there has been a rise in environmental dangers due to the ecological strain caused by human activities [40]. The pursuit of sustainable growth without causing harm to the environment is of great significance in current literature [40]. that both green economic growth and economic globalization have a substantial positive impact on renewable energy consumption.

Additionally, there is a long-term relationship between these variables, known as cointegration. The study also indicates that emissions remain significant despite the implementation of renewable energy in these heavily industrialized nations [40]. The impact of the innovative economy goes beyond technological progress and includes sectors such as transportation, logistics, and services, providing significant economic gains and environmental benefits. Although there are difficulties in quantifying the many impacts of intelligent cities, studies conducted by Ref. [41] highlight the potential of innovative city projects in improving competitiveness, generating wealth, boosting employment, and advancing environmental sustainability. Using the potential of significant industries like China and the Us States, economists forecast that global economic growth will accelerate to 5.7 % this year. As developing nations are expected to face the fall for a longer time frame, the global economy has risen in 2021. Still, the global GDP rate is approximately 3.3 % lower than expected before the epidemic [33]. As a result, oil demand fell, and economic activity was constrained after the physical isolation rules were put into place in response to the pandemic's aftermath. The global economic downturn caused by the COVID-19 virus is unprecedented in scale, and its effects can be seen in virtually every region [2].

The lockdown implemented to limit the spreading of disease has resulted in a loss for businesses as the production of commodities has fallen due to disruptions in supply networks around the world, and sales growth in the economy has slowed as a result. As a result of business closures, the unemployment rate has risen dramatically. As a result, GDP growth is severely impacted globally [42]. Similarly, the financial sector and major economies have been hit severely by the continuing crises that emerged in reaction to COVID-19. Renewable funding has also suffered as a result of this epidemic, with their implementation suffering the most.

2.3 Research gap

Green investment strategies are already being implemented by developed nations like the US and the UK to guarantee both economic and ecological viability. However, developing nations also focus on this policy in order to address challenges brought on by COVID-19 [43]. Every company and factory today needs to put resources into research and development of techniques that will aid in solving environmental issues. As a result, governments are focusing on enforcing policies that support a green economic system built on renewable energy and long-term planning [44]. In addition [45], stated that a green bond market structure performs an essential part in reducing net contribution across dependence structures during financial crises, and they advocated for the efficiency of the system in providing diversification benefits over the environmental dangers related to digital assets. Therefore, it is imperative to advance the green market system in order to safeguard environmental quality, especially in the post-COVID-19 period. Green market expansion and adherence to environmental policies necessitate investment possibilities in order to mitigate the adverse effects of the current market structure [45].

Previous research suggests that current manufacturing methods, which cause carbon dioxide emissions and pollution, can have adverse effects on sustainable growth [46]. examines three key characteristics closely linked to carbon emissions: economic growth, which significantly impacts environmental quality, mainly when it relies heavily on energy-intensive consumption and fossil fuels for energy generation [46]. indicate that high pollution levels characterize urbanization in its early phases. This research identifies urbanization as a significant contributor to environmental degradation.

Furthermore, recent research has examined the ecological impact of the high-tech industry and found that it is comparatively less detrimental. Moreover, technical advancements have the potential to contribute positively to the decrease of carbon emissions. A carbon footprint is projected to be higher in an industrial structure where primary and secondary industries are prominent compared to a structure where tertiary sectors dominate. Moreover, the energy efficiency of primary and secondary businesses in terms of value creation is lower than the tertiary level, resulting in higher levels of anticipated environmental harm [46]. Furthermore, it not only presents substantial risks to ecological sustainability but also contributes to the exhaustion of natural resources.

Furthermore, the worldwide economic condition has worsened due to the catastrophic COVID-19 viral pandemic, resulting in a substantial adverse effect on global health and the economy. Due to the implemented efforts to mitigate the spread of COVID-19, a significant number of individuals have experienced unemployment, poverty, and food insecurity. Hence, embracing policies or approaches that foster sustainable development is imperative considering the present situation. An example of such a plan is “green growth,” which has the potential to enhance a nation's productivity without exhausting its natural resources. This research aims to address the existing information gaps about the efficacy of green energy in the post-pandemic period.

3 Methodology

3.1 The concept of theory (shared value model)

Applying data from 1991 to 2022, this study examines the relationship between financial stability and sustainable growth empirically, as well as evaluates COVID-19's impact in a sample of developed and developing nations. While selecting a sample, we considered both the quantity of available data and the level of incidence of COVID-19.

To meet current demands without reducing future generations' potential to meet their own needs is central to the concept of sustainable development, which is concerned with a form of economic growth that takes into consideration environmental, social, and institutional concerns. To that end, we will be drawing on the principles of the collaborative value model, which holds that businesses may benefit both their bottom line and the greater good by adopting environmentally friendly policies. Economic and social advancement are inseparably connected, and this is something shared value seeks to highlight and promote. Many people hold the view that corporations are contributing to environmental damage and high emissions of carbon dioxide through their practices of “unsustainable development,” which involve the use of wasteful production methods. According to the new “shared value model,” businesses are seen as the key to achieving sustainable development since they have the potential to foster both rapid economic expansion and long-term sustainability through the adoption of environmentally friendly energy regulations. The ability to recognize and respond to social, administration, and ecological risks is bolstered in businesses that adopt sustainability practices. Lower risk gives high stock prices and increases the trust of investors. Financial savings can be realized through the implementation of sustainable measures such as recycling, conserving energy, and organizing and managing the supply chain. This tightened regulation may have a beneficial impact on shareholder value, turnover, and profitability.

The following method has been chosen to clarify the relationship between economic expansion and sustainable growth in accordance with the shared value technique: GDPs, sustainable growth, green energy, price increases, and the population of cities.

3.2 Estimation methods

In this study, we use a panel data analysis with both fixed and random effect models to establish connections across post-pandemic prosperity, green energy, and sustainable growth. Due to the lack of available data, a smaller panel of thirty-three countries, including developed as well as developing countries, were chosen to assess the impact of COVID-19 throughout the period from 1991 to 2022. Additionally, due to a lack of data, the COVID-19 variables are not being utilized for estimation; however, its effect will be examined by comparing a variety of papers supplied by the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank.

Since the panel data approach gives us more degrees of flexibility and includes both time-series data and cross-section impacts, it is functional.

3.2.1 Pooled OLS model

Each coefficient, together with the points of intersection, is thought to stay the same for the foundation of the uninfluenced coefficients. As a result, we neglected intervals and time impact ratios for the combined data. For this purpose, we employed a pooled OLS model. Because of this assumed constancy across time as well as cross-sectional units, data can be pooled and evaluated using ordinary least squares OLS as in Eq. (1):(1) SDit=α0+α1GDPpcit+α2GEit+α3Upopit+α4INFit+Uit

SD stands for sustainable development, which is calculated as a percentage of GDP using the total of natural resource rents. Due to the need for a direct metric for sustainable development, a number of studies have instead relied on estimates of the overall natural resource rents [47]. The GDP per individual is employed to examine economic growth, the availability of renewable energy is a stand-in for green power, urbanization rates are expressed as a share of the entire population, and consumer price indexes are used to calculate price increases. Literature makes extensive use of these factors [48]. Furthermore, α0 stands for the model's slope and is independent of the abovementioned variables. The slope variables for GDP per capita, green energy, and populations are represented by the values of α1, α2, α3, and α4. While i denote the total number of cross-sections (33), t denotes the years 1991–2022, and Uit denotes the error term. However, it is possible that the relationship between the observed and explanation variables across the cross-sections cannot be clearly depicted by pooled regression. We are able to speculate about using different static panel data methods.

3.2.2 Fixed-effects model

According to the fixed-effect model, variations across the cross-sectional units follow a deterministic pattern. Whereas when looking at cross-sectional data, the intercept shifts while the slopes stay the same when using a fixed effect as in Eq. (2):(2) SDit=α0+αi+α1GDPpcit+α2GEit+α3Upopit+α4INFit+Uit

where i represent the entities that are unique to a particular country, when using least-squares dummy variables, each “i" variable can represent a country with the help of i-1 dummy variables. Time variables can be included in the formula mentioned above by including time dummies whose values change over time but stay constant in cross-sections [29]. One possible form of Equation (2) is as in Eq. (3):(3) SDit=α0+αi+αt+α1GDPpcit+α2GEit+α3upopit+α4INFit+Uit

Where αt is a value that represents time-specific impact, and time-effect models are employed to represent how different laws, regulations, and new technology can be put into place over time.

3.2.3 Random effects model

This framework, when compared to fixed effects models, reflects random changes across cross-sections, as random disparities between cross-sections are believed to exist as a result of merging rather than obtaining from an individual sample. It is possible to express an equation with random impacts in a way such as as in Eq. (4):(4) SDit=α0+α1GDPpcit+α2GEit+α3upopit+α4INFit+Uit+wi

Both the time-based and nation-specific effects in the above equation are regarded as arbitrary, and the time effects in the equation as mentioned above are able to be expressed as follows as in Eq. (5):(5) SDit=α0+α1GDPpcit+α2GEit+α3upopit+α4INFit+vit

Where, vit=Uit+Wit.

In the model mentioned above, each of the following error term components is taken to be random:E(Uit)=E(α1)=E(wi)=0

E(UitXit)=E(α1Xit)=E(wiXit)=0

Var(Uit)=∂2μ;var(αt)=∂2α=var(wi)=∂2σ

The model mentioned above is referred to as a variance-component model, and random effect models are best assessed using Generalized Least Squares instead of traditional least squares.

The most common test to determine whether to employ a model with fixed effects or a model with random effects is the Hausman (1978) test. In a random effects model, the factors under study, or E(Xit), are taken to have no association with the term associated with error [49].H0=E(Xit,Uit)=0

H1=E(Xit,Uit)≠0

The distinction between fixed effects and random effects can be determined by using a test based on statistics. If H1 is correct since there appears to be a relationship between the erroneous term and explaining factors, then a fixed effects model is preferable over random effects one, which would lead to inconsistency as in Eq. (6):(6) H=[βre−βfe]χ2(v(βre−βfe)

This method uses k1 degrees of freedom, or chi2, in statistical parlance. That's why a test statistic result above the threshold values causes a rejection of the random effects hypothesis 0.

3.3 Information collected

The study summary is written using data for relevant variables obtained from the Global Development Indicators (2023), and the results of the analyses include a selection of thirty-three nations (detailed in Table 1). The selection of the sample is determined by the amount of data that is easily accessible as well as the volume of COVID-19 in that location during the period (1991–2022). Table 2 provides an overview of the parameters used in this analysis. Sustainable development serves as a dependent factor in this theoretical structure, with green energy, GDP per capita, and rise in population working as independent factors (Check out Fig. 1).Table 1 List of 33 selected countries.

Table 1China	Belgium	Pakistan	
Italy	Norway	India	
United States	Sweden	Thailand	
Spain	Brazil	Saudi Arabia	
Germany	Turkey	Chile	
Iran	Malaysia	Finland	
France	Denmark	Nigeria	
Switzerland	Canada	Singapore	
United Kingdom	Israel	Russia	
Netherland	Japan	Qatar	
Australia	Ireland	Estonia	

Table 2 Description of the data.

Table 2Variables	Symbols	Units using	Explanation	
SD (Overall natural resource rent)	SD	% of GDP	Rental income from petroleum, natural gas, and coal are all included	
Economic Development	GDppc	Yearly %	The total worth assumed by all national manufacturers, scaled by population (during the year) to eliminate taxes on goods from results value	
Green Energy (Renewable resources)	GE	% of GDP	The sum of all renewable materials	
Urban Population	Upop	%of the total population	There are no occupants in urban regions	
Price Increasing (Inflation)	Inf	Yearly %	Consumer price index-based calculations account for price changes according to people's disposable income.	
Source of information: WDI

Fig. 1 Response of INF to a shock in UPOP.

Fig. 1

4 Results and discussion

4.1 Descriptive analysis of results

Table 2 displays the results of statistical tests conducted on all relevant variables used for estimation. The mean percentage of sustainable development in a subset of industrialized and developing nations is 14.3 %. The lowest reported figure was 1 % in Italy, and the highest was 1110.38 in France. GDP percentage growth ranges from a low of 41.1 in Malaysia to a high of 33.04 in Japan, with the average being 1.9 %. India scored the highest value (93.447), followed by Estonia (−0.10), with green energy scoring an average of 4.45 overall. For the people living in cities, the average number is 58.2. The data is confirmed to be distributed normally using the JB test's probable value. Table 3 displays the most minor, most significant, highest, average, and standard deviations, along with the number of observations for each variable.Table 3 Methods of describing data.

Table 3	SD	GDPPC	GE	UPOP	INF	
Mean	14.27	1.95	4.41	58.10	16.77	
Median	5.09	1.97	0.97	58.26	3.64	
Maximum	1110.3	33.030	93.446	98.117	3373.7	
Minimum	−0.911	−41.09	−0.10	16.38	−10.63	
Std.Dev.	44.32	5.30	8.96	20.63	138.87	
Skewness	17.32	−1.11	3.88	−0.10	18.31	
Kurtosis	393.12	12.22	22.46	2.01	385.13	
Jarque−Bera	6,365,991.6	3920.4	19,084.9	44.60	63.73	
Probability	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	
Sum	14,217.44	2041.082	4608.293	61,360.90	17,415.00	
Sumsq.Dev	1,954,786.1	29,368.34	83,717.53	449,221.6	200,000.79	
Obs.	996	1045	1043	1056	1038	

4.2 The findings from the correlation analysis

The list of correlations among the variables that are being described and those that are being explained is presented in Table 4. The r = 0.19 result reflects the negative relationship between GDP growth and long-term growth. The population-related variable exhibits a similar negative relationship to sustainable development. However, there is a positive relationship between sustainable development and a value of energy of 0.04.Table 4 Correlation matrix.

Table 4	(One)	(Two)	(Three)	(Four)	(Five)	
SD	1.000					
GDPpc	−0.198	1.000				
GE	0.03316	−0.0633	1.000			
UPOP	−0.1298	−0.0959	−0.1807	1.000		
INF	0.0767	−0.084	−0.0189	−0.0078	1.000	

4.3 Results from a visual analysis

Fig. 2 shows the trends in green energy, economic expansion, and sustainable development for the chosen panel of nations between 1991 and 2022, according to Fig. 3.Fig. 2 Time series multiple plot.

Fig. 2

Fig. 3 VAR residuals for variables.

Fig. 3

As seen in the following graph, a positive correlation exists between sustainable development, GDP growth, and green energy usage within the sample of nations analyzed. Sustainable development indicates a decreasing trend as economic growth increases, as depicted in the above graph. In contrast, green energy has demonstrated a relatively stable trend throughout time in the nations chosen for this analysis. As a result of the enormous economic downturn caused by the COVID-19 epidemic, 2019 and subsequent years may see less economic expansion.

4.4 Economic analysis discussion

Using the above-described empirical model, Table 4 summarizes the findings for the panel of 33 countries, both developed and developing, according to the COVID-19 level for the years 1991–2022. The outcomes for the Pooled OLS, Random effects mode (REM), and Fixed effects model (REM) are all provided in Table 5. Results from both fixed effects and random effect models are supported by the Hausman specification test, with similar but not identical signs for the parameters, with the conclusions being extremely model-dependent. As a whole, the estimations are satisfactory and stable across several diagnostics since the F-test illustrates the overall relevance of the predicted models.Table 5 Results from Pooled OLS model.

Table 5Variables	Coefficient	SE	T-stats	P-value	
C	27.54284***	2.555957	10.77595	0.0000	
GDPPC	−0.299321**	0.146930	−2.037172	0.0420	
GE	0.001762	0.073926	0.023826	0.9811	
UPOP	−0.243840***	0.034259	−7.117831	0.0000	
INF	−1.691677	1.328267	−1.273598	0.2032	
R−squared	0.0568				
P(F−stats)	0.0000				
S−ERegression	20.07				
	
FixedEffectsModel(FEM)	
Variables	Coefficient	SE	T−stats	P−value	
C	19.98701***	6.955989	2.873353	0.0043	
GDPPC	−0.397539***	0.126842	−3.134152	0.0019	
GE	0.306506**	0.142868	2.145385	0.0323	
UPOP	−0.199306*	0.113171	−1.761118	0.0787	
INF	4.844338***	1.421200	3.408627	0.0008	
R−squared	0.448				
P(F−stats)	0.000				
S−ERegression	15.623				
RandomEffectsModel(REM)	
Variables	Coefficient	SE	T−stats	P−value	
C	20.38219***	5.676686	3.590508	0.0004	
GDPPC	−0.387663***	0.125736	−3.083156	0.0022	
GE	0.224372*	0.125608	1.786290	0.0745	
UPOP	−0.188202**	0.082500	−2.281256	0.0229	
INF	4.294573***	1.380896	3.109993	0.0020	
R−squared	0.038				
P(F−stats)	0.0000				
S−ERegression	15.67				
Note: The levels of significance are 10 %(*), 5 %(**), and 1 %(*).

Furthermore, similar outcomes have been identified for the Langrage multipliers test for REM accuracy and the Bresuch pegan test for heterogeneity. In particular, GDPPC was determined to be negatively significant, indicating that a rise in economic activity represents a risk to the environment because it uses inefficient suggests for manufacturing without taking into account the drawbacks, such as significant carbon emissions or the destruction of forests used in construction, which results in adverse impacts and reduces the amount of resources available for future generations. The GDDPC factor for green energy, on the other hand, has a positive effect on sustainable development, suggesting that sustainable industrial practices have the potential to increase progress in this area. We must use strategies like green energy to boost economic growth without impacting ecological and economic sustainability, especially in light of the COVID-19 pandemic's adverse effects on the global economy and its grave risks to sustainable development. Response of SD to a shock in SD with the Confidence interval are shown in Fig. 4.Fig. 4 Response of SD to a shock in SD with the Confidence interval.

Fig. 4

However, it was shown that population had a negative effect on sustainable development. Because of rising populations, natural resources are being depleted at an alarming rate, posing a threat to life on Earth and to species. More importantly, as an epidemic disease, COVID-19 represents a stark choice for the public's access to natural resources, environmental quality, and healthcare infrastructure. Many atmospheric pollutants, including rising carbon emissions, compound COVID-19's destructive potential. Thus, COVID-19 is more common in countries where manufacturing, transport, and major industries are the main economic sectors. According to the value of GDPPC, which was negative at the one percent significance level, a one-unit rise in GDPPC reduces sustainable growth by 0.4 %. Since environmental damage could be the price paid for more significant economic growth. Wealthy people today have more money, which raises living standards temporarily but may also be linked to the long-term exploitation of the natural resources needed to maintain well-being. However, maintaining living standards and giving the benefits of economic prosperity to the most significant number of people still living in poverty while maintaining the environmental life-sustaining services required for future welfare may prove to be a formidable challenge for humanity to meet in the twenty-first century.

The relationship between sustainable development and economic development was also discussed by Ref. [50], who concluded that sustainable development could gain significantly from economic development provided the assets being used are fixed, long-lasting, or have the potential to grow. The availability of natural resources, including a clean environment, was crucial to the improvement of future living conditions, economic expansion, and technological advancement. Additional natural resources or utilization may be hazardous to the prosperity of future generations. Furthermore [48], explained in their research that economic development is unsustainable since its destructive impacts exceed its beneficial effects and that a reduction in growth might draw volatility under the current situation. This takes a stand against the carelessness with which policymakers create and carry out sustainability objectives. Similarly [48], agreed that economic development could have unintended effects if we fail to account for the long-term impact of depleting natural resources. (Check out Table 6). Regression residuals (Observed vs Fitted for GDP) shown in Fig. 5.Table 6 Test results based on specifications.

Table 6Testsummary	Probability	Evaluated	Result	
HausmanTest	0.0853	Random or Fixed	Fixed Effects	
F−test	0.0001	Fixed or Ordinary Least Square	Fixed Effects	
Bresuch−Pegantest	0.0002	Random or Ordinary Least Square	Random Effects	

Fig. 5 Regression residuals (Observed vs Fitted for GDP).

Fig. 5

Compared to the GDPPC, the green energy variables indicate a 0.308 % improvement in the sustainable development rate at the 5 % significance level for each additional unit in green energy. The research shows that green energy is crucial in ensuring that economic expansion is compatible with sustainable development. Green energy is a method to reap the rewards of economic prosperity without affecting future gains, especially in a post-COVID-19 world. This is why the authors of his study cite the work of [34] in emphasizing the significance of renewable energy. The global economy has been said to have undergone a revolution with the adoption of environmentally friendly and economically viable green energy strategies in place of capital-intensive frameworks. As a result, green energy policy is a topic of discussion among economists and scientists for its potential to improve both the environment and the economy [51]. published a separate analysis contrasting the value of renewable and non-renewable energy sources. Non-renewable resources may be cheaper to acquire initially, but they may have far-reaching detrimental effects on a country's economy and social stability. Therefore, green energy efforts allow businesses to adopt renewable energy laws, which increase the prevalence of these energy sources. Response of UPOP to a shock in GDP with the Confidence interval presented in Fig. 6.Fig. 6 Response of UPOP to a shock in GDP with the Confidence interval.

Fig. 6

Furthermore, the utilization of green finance was endorsed by Ref. [52]. It is said that green financing is crucial in encouraging the use of sources of renewable energy to obtain benefits today without restricting the use of resources in the future [48]. examined the effect of green energy sources on sustainable growth. They came to the same conclusion: the most reliable and environmentally friendly green energy comes from renewable resources like the sun, the air, the tides, the ocean, and the Earth itself. Outcomes of Actual and Fitted GDP vs GE shown in Fig. 7.Fig. 7 Actual and Fitted GDP vs GE.

Fig. 7

As suggested, increasing the urban population has a detrimental effect on sustainable development. At the one percent threshold of significance, a one percent rise in population is associated with a 0.2 percentage point decrease in sustainable development. Because of shortages of resources, a growing population is generally seen as a risk. In addition to causing socioeconomic and ecological catastrophes, the large population load additionally makes it more difficult to address people's demands. On the other hand, managing when demand exceeds supply is always challenging. Research [31] suggests a negative correlation between an increase in population and long-term prosperity. Also [29], suggested that by reducing the fertility ratio and the flow of resources, the pressure on CO2 emissions may be reduced by 2050, which may result in sustainable development. Increased population is a significant threat to ecological and economic viability because it increases the strain to meet rising demand with ever-decreasing supplies. High population density, extreme poverty, and rapid industrialization are all significant barriers to sustainable development, according to a different study by Ref. [52]. Positive statistical significance for inflation is established, suggesting that higher inflation promotes more sustainable development. As a result, no research specifically addresses the impact of price increases in relation to sustainable development. At the same time, there are a number of studies that analyze the correlation between economic expansion and price increases. At the same time, there are good and bad effects of price increases. One possible explanation for our findings is that rising inflation raises the price of inputs, which drives up manufacturing costs. Therefore, in this case, SDG 12 specifies that supplies and waste products in manufacturing procedures must be decreased. Because of this, high inflation forces companies to concentrate on recycling waste so they can utilize it again during manufacturing in order to offset the elevated rate of price increases. This mode of production is the key to long-term economic expansion.

4.4.1 The Hausman specification test

For the purpose of determining whether to depend on the FEM or the Random effects model (REM), the Hausman test is the method used to choose the model for interpretation. If the p-value is more significant than the level of significance, the fixed effects model is more likely to be the correct one, and a choice can be made based on this probability. The data above indicate a p-value of 0.086, which suggests the fixed-effect model is preferable.

Additional tests, such as the Breusch Pegan and the F-test, are also used to select the optimal model type from among the pooled OLS, fixed, and random effects models. In this final section, we examine the empirical facts that clarify the link between financial stability, SD, and green energy.

5 Conclusion and policy implication

The concept of sustainable development and progress refers to an all-encompassing viewpoint that seeks to meet the requirements of the present without compromising the requirements of future generations. In order to protect biodiversity and conserve natural resources, sustainable development aims to lessen the impact of human activity on the environment by cutting down on waste and greenhouse gas emissions. The purpose of this research is to evaluate the connection between economic prosperity, sustainable development, green economic recovery, and green energy. For this goal, a panel of 33 industrialized and developing countries was chosen for the period 1991–2022. The global spread of COVID-19 has seriously damaged national economic infrastructures and slowed growth rates. The dependability of sustainable development is affected by the economic production methods based on current technologies. However, a new term, green energy, has gained significant importance as part of our need to maintain our economic system. The fixed-effect model's inference from the Hausman test's significance level is that technological progress, which promotes economic growth, has an adverse impact on sustainable development by increasing carbon dioxide emissions and degrading the natural environment. However, green energy is seen as having a favourable impact on renewable resource-based sustainable development. At the same time, it is true that a growing population has a negative impact on long-term progress and makes it nearly impossible to satisfy consumer demand when resources are few.

The research focuses only on analyzing the influence of green energy on sustainable economic growth and green economic recovery. It utilizes data from 33 industrialized and developing nations, spanning the years 1991–2022. The analysis uses a thorough econometric methodology, which incorporates Pooled OLS, FEM, and REM, to offer reliable and robust insights. The study's primary value comes in its comprehensive analysis of the interaction between green energy, economic growth, and sustainability, emphasizing the beneficial impact of investments in green energy. The research findings suggest that green energy substantially promotes sustainable economic growth and facilitates green economic recovery in the 33 nations examined. The analysis demonstrates that conventional economic indicators, such as GDP per capita, might adversely influence sustainability. However, investments in green energy have a beneficial effect. The study revealed that population growth negatively influences sustainable development, highlighting the importance of efficient resource management. The study highlights the crucial importance of green energy in promoting sustainable economic and environmental resilience over the long run. These findings emphasize the importance of policymakers prioritizing green energy efforts to accomplish sustainable development objectives.

Lockdowns during COVID-19 were implemented as a protective strategy to minimize the spread of this disease. Still, they had adverse effects, including the loss of jobs, poor health, and lack of food for many individuals. In this instance, all financial and economic organizations have adjusted their strategies to deal with the disease. Thus, solid economic expansion is crucial for economic recovery. So, in addition to focusing on achieving aggressive growth targets, we must also ensure that we are using renewable energy in a way that does not compromise the long-term viability of our economy. Formulation and enforcing policies that emphasize the significance of renewable resources is necessary since green energy is a highly successful approach to achieving long-term economic growth. Furthermore, the government should provide funding for establishing such green energy businesses. It is necessary to raise awareness about the issue of renewable energy sources.

The research identifies numerous essential policy implications that are consistent with its findings. Policymakers must prioritize promoting and allocating resources toward green energy sources to enhance sustainable development. One way to accomplish this is by providing financial incentives, subsidies, and regulatory frameworks that promote renewable energy technologies. Due to the detrimental effects of conventional economic growth on sustainability, it is necessary to incorporate green energy techniques into more comprehensive financial planning to alleviate severe environmental consequences. Furthermore, it is crucial to implement efficient population control measures and policies to preserve resources and mitigate the adverse effects of population expansion on sustainability. Policymakers should prioritize increasing public consciousness of the advantages of renewable energy and executing educational initiatives to cultivate a sustainability mindset. Nations can achieve long-term economic resilience and sustainability by implementing tailored green energy policies that link economic development with environmental protection.

5.1 Limitations

Although this study thoroughly examines, it is essential to acknowledge its various shortcomings. The information covers the period from 1991 to 2022, which is significant but may include something other than the latest advancements in green energy technologies and legislation. Moreover, the study examines explicitly a restricted set of countries, which may result in disregarding regional disparities and the distinctive situations of other nations. Using macroeconomic measures may obscure the underlying microeconomic dynamics and sector-specific effects of adopting green energy. In addition, the research predominantly utilizes Pooled OLS, FEM, and REM, which, although reliable, may not wholly address endogeneity concerns or the dynamic characteristics of green energy investments. Furthermore, the omission of certain COVID-19 impact factors due to data constraints could damage the thoroughness of the conclusions on the pandemic's impact on sustainable development.

5.2 Proposed areas for future research

To overcome these constraints, future research should focus on integrating more up-to-date data that accurately represents the most current developments in green energy technologies and legislation. Incorporating a more comprehensive array of countries, particularly those in developing areas, into the sample would yield a more thorough comprehension of the worldwide effects of green energy. Advanced econometric techniques, such as dynamic panel data models or instrumental variable approaches, can effectively tackle potential endogeneity difficulties. Furthermore, it is recommended that future research investigates the unique effects on different sectors and conducts a more detailed analysis of microeconomic variables to reveal intricate details about the adoption of green energy. Integrating specific assessments of COVID-19's economic and environmental impacts will improve our comprehension of how the pandemic influences the paths toward sustainable development.

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Not applicable.

Consent for publication

All of the authors consented to publish this manuscript.

Funding

Funding Information is not available.

Data availability

We collected relevant data from World Bank open data available at https://data.worldbank.org/. For any further query on data, corresponding author at email address 18875090895@163.com may be approached.

CRediT authorship contribution statement

Qiao Zeng: Writing – review & editing, Writing – original draft, Visualization. Caixia Li: Writing – review & editing, Writing – original draft, Visualization, Methodology. Cosimo Magazzino: Writing – review & editing, Writing – original draft, Data curation, Conceptualization.

Declaration of competing interest

The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.

Acknowledgement

The 2022 annual project of the 14th Five Year Plan for Education Science in Chongqing (K22YG218233 ) “Research on the Achievements of Education Consolidation and Expansion in Poverty Alleviation from the Perspective of Rural Revitalization - Taking the Poverty Alleviation and Hatting Areas in Chongqing as an Example"

The 2023 Research Key Project of Chongqing College of Humanities, Science and Technology,School of Business(CRKGS202302 ) “Research on the Linkage Mechanism and Policy Guarantee of Digital Economy Boosting the High Quality Development of Rural Industries in Chongqing".
==== Refs
References

1 Timofieieva O. Świergosz-Kowalewska R. Laskowski R. Vlaschenko A. Wing membrane and Fur as indicators of metal exposure and contamination of internal tissues in bats Environ. Pollut. 276 2021 10.1016/j.envpol.2021.116703
2 Nepal R. Phoumin H. Khatri A. Green technological development and deployment in the association of southeast Asian economies (ASEAN)—at crossroads or roundabout? Sustain. Times 13 2 Jan. 2021 1 19 10.3390/SU13020758
3 Taghizadeh-Hesary F. Yoshino N. Sustainable solutions for green financing and investment in renewable energy projects Energies 13 4 2020 10.3390/EN13040788
4 Hsu C.C. Quang-Thanh N. Chien F.S. Li L. Mohsin M. Evaluating green innovation and performance of financial development: mediating concerns of environmental regulation Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 28 40 2021 57386 57397 10.1007/s11356-021-14499-w
5 Tiwari A.K. Aikins Abakah E.J. Gabauer D. Dwumfour R.A. Dynamic spillover effects among green bond, renewable energy stocks and carbon markets during COVID-19 pandemic: implications for hedging and investments strategies Global Finance J. 51 2022 10.1016/J.GFJ.2021.100692
6 Xie R. Yao S. Han F. Zhang Q. Does misallocation of land resources reduce urban green total factor productivity? An analysis of city-level panel data in China Land Use Pol. 122 2022 10.1016/J.LANDUSEPOL.2022.106353
7 Nguyen T.T.H. Naeem M.A. Balli F. Balli H.O. Vo X.V. Time-frequency comovement among green bonds, stocks, commodities, clean energy, and conventional bonds Finance Res. Lett. 40 2021 10.1016/j.frl.2020.101739
8 Yang Z. Fan M. Shao S. Yang L. Does carbon intensity constraint policy improve industrial green production performance in China? A quasi-DID analysis Energy Econ. 68 Oct. 2017 271 282 10.1016/J.ENECO.2017.10.009
9 Guo Y. Zhao L. Zhang C. Energy resources, tourism development and growth-emission nexus in developing countries Resour. Pol. 81 2023 10.1016/j.resourpol.2023.103407
10 Arif A. Minh Vu H. Cong M. Hon Wei L. Islam M. Niedbała G. Natural resources commodity prices volatility and economic performance: evaluating the role of green finance Resour. Pol. 76 Jun 2022 10.1016/j.resourpol.2022.102557
11 Wen H. Lee C.C. Zhou F. Green credit policy, credit allocation efficiency and upgrade of energy-intensive enterprises Energy Econ. 94 Feb 2021 10.1016/J.ENECO.2021.105099
12 Lin B. Zhu J. Fiscal spending and green economic growth: evidence from China Energy Econ. 83 Sep. 2019 264 271 10.1016/J.ENECO.2019.07.010
13 Wang Y. Zhi Q. The role of green finance in environmental protection: two aspects of market mechanism and policies Energy Proc. 104 2016 311 316 10.1016/J.EGYPRO.2016.12.053
14 Osei L.K. Techno-economic viability of decentralised solar photovoltaic-based green hydrogen production for sustainable energy transition in Ghana Sol. Compass 9 2024 100068 10.1016/j.solcom.2024.100068
15 Luthra S. Kumar S. Garg D. Haleem A. Barriers to renewable/sustainable energy technologies adoption: Indian perspective Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 41 2015 762 776 10.1016/j.rser.2014.08.077
16 Rahman S. Moral I.H. Hassan M. Hossain G.S. Perveen R. A systematic review of green finance in the banking industry: perspectives from a developing country Green Financ 4 3 2022 347 363 10.3934/GF.2022017
17 Li C. Sampene A.K. Agyeman F.O. Brenya R. Wiredu J. The role of green finance and energy innovation in neutralizing environmental pollution: empirical evidence from the MINT economies J. Environ. Manag. 317 2022 10.1016/j.jenvman.2022.115500
18 Cao S. Nie L. Sun H. Sun W. Taghizadeh-Hesary F. Digital finance, green technological innovation and energy-environmental performance: evidence from China's regional economies J. Clean. Prod. 327 2021 10.1016/J.JCLEPRO.2021.129458
19 Taghizadeh-Hesary F. Yoshino N. The way to induce private participation in green finance and investment Finance Res. Lett. 31 Dec. 2019 98 103 10.1016/J.FRL.2019.04.016
20 Li Z. Li L. Hui M. Fostering green economic growth through sustainable management of natural resources Resour. Pol. 91 2024 104867 10.1016/j.resourpol.2024.104867
21 Lee C.C. Wang F. Chang Y.F. Does green finance promote renewable energy? Evidence from China Resour. Pol. 82 May 2023 10.1016/j.resourpol.2023.103439
22 Chishti M.Z. Sinha A. Zaman U. Shahzad U. Exploring the dynamic connectedness among energy transition and its drivers: understanding the moderating role of global geopolitical risk Energy Econ. 119 2023 106570 10.1016/J.ENECO.2023.106570
23 Huang W. He J. Impact of energy intensity, green economy, and natural resources development to achieve sustainable economic growth in Asian countries Resour. Pol. 84 2023 103726 10.1016/j.resourpol.2023.103726
24 Hafner S. Jones A. Anger-Kraavi A. Pohl J. Closing the green finance gap – a systems perspective Environ. Innov. Soc. Transit. 34 Mar. 2020 26 60 10.1016/J.EIST.2019.11.007
25 Reboredo J.C. Green bond and financial markets: Co-movement, diversification and price spillover effects Energy Econ. 74 Aug. 2018 38 50
26 Ren X. Shao Q. Zhong R. Nexus between green finance, non-fossil energy use, and carbon intensity: empirical evidence from China based on a vector error correction model J. Clean. Prod. 277 Dec. 2020 122844 10.1016/J.JCLEPRO.2020.122844
27 Raihan A. Pavel M.I. Muhtasim D.A. Farhana S. Faruk O. Paul A. The role of renewable energy use, technological innovation, and forest cover toward green development: evidence from Indonesia Innov. Green Dev. 2 1 2023 100035 10.1016/j.igd.2023.100035
28 Allan Tisdell C. Renewable energy use and the renewable energy sector's development: public finance, environmental externalities and sustainability Green Financ 1 2 2019 156 173 10.3934/GF.2019.2.156
29 Li M. Hamawandy N.M. Wahid F. Rjoub H. Bao Z. Renewable energy resources investment and green finance: evidence from China Resour. Pol. 74 2021 10.1016/J.RESOURPOL.2021.102402
30 Yan J. Haroon M. Financing efficiency in natural resource markets mobilizing private and public capital for a green recovery Resour. Pol. 85 2023 103841 10.1016/j.resourpol.2023.103841
31 Xu H. Mei Q. Shahzad F. Liu S. Long X. Zhang J. Untangling the impact of green finance on the enterprise green performance: a meta-analytic approach Sustain. Times 12 21 Nov. 2020 1 16 10.3390/SU12219085
32 Bei J. Wang C. Renewable energy resources and sustainable development goals: evidence based on green finance, clean energy and environmentally friendly investment Resour. Pol. 80 2023 103194 10.1016/j.resourpol.2022.103194 December 2021
33 Mngumi F. Shaorong S. Shair F. Waqas M. Does green finance mitigate the effects of climate variability: role of renewable energy investment and infrastructure Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 29 39 2022 59287 59299 10.1007/S11356-022-19839-Y
34 Chishti M.Z. Patel R. Breaking the climate deadlock: leveraging the effects of natural resources on climate technologies to achieve COP26 targets Resour. Pol. 82 2023 10.1016/j.resourpol.2023.103576
35 Chan J.H.L. Chan T.Y.M. Current trends of developing energy efficiency projects in the building sector of China Sustain. Energy Green Financ. a Low-carbon Econ. Perspect. from Gt. Bay Area China 2020 227 244 10.1007/978-3-030-35411-4_12
36 Shen Y. Su Z.W. Malik M.Y. Umar M. Khan Z. Khan M. Does green investment, financial development and natural resources rent limit carbon emissions? A provincial panel analysis of China Sci. Total Environ. 755 Feb. 2021 142538 10.1016/J.SCITOTENV.2020.142538
37 Deng M. China economic performance and natural resources commodity prices volatility: evidence from China in COVID-19 Resour. Pol. 75 Mar 2022 10.1016/j.resourpol.2021.102525
38 Xiang S. Cao Y. Green finance and natural resources commodities prices: evidence from COVID-19 period Resour. Pol. 80 2023 10.1016/j.resourpol.2022.103200
39 Zhang J. Chen Z. Altuntaş M. Tracing volatility in natural resources, green finance and investment in energy resources: fresh evidence from China Resour. Pol. 79 2022 10.1016/j.resourpol.2022.102946
40 Ashfaq S. Liangrong S. Waqas F. Gulzar S. Mujtaba G. Nasir R.M. Renewable energy and green economic growth nexus: insights from simulated dynamic ARDL Gondwana Res. 127 2024 288 300 10.1016/j.gr.2023.08.014
41 Stamopoulos D. Dimas P. Siokas G. Siokas E. Getting smart or going green? Quantifying the Smart City Industry's economic impact and potential for sustainable growth Cities 144 2024 104612 10.1016/j.cities.2023.104612
42 Wang S. Sun L. Iqbal S. Green financing role on renewable energy dependence and energy transition in E7 economies Renew. Energy 200 2022 1561 1572 10.1016/j.renene.2022.10.067
43 Li C.Z. Umair M. Does green finance development goals affects renewable energy in China Renew. Energy 203 December 2022 2023 898 905 10.1016/j.renene.2022.12.066
44 Zhou M. Li X. Influence of green finance and renewable energy resources over the sustainable development goal of clean energy in China Resour. Pol. 78 2022 10.1016/j.resourpol.2022.102816
45 Soundarrajan P. Vivek N. Green finance for sustainable green economic growth in India Agric. Econ. 62 1 2016 35 44 10.17221/174/2014-AGRICECON
46 Nuţă F.M. The relationship among urbanization, economic growth, renewable energy consumption, and environmental degradation: a comparative view of European and Asian emerging economies Gondwana Res. 128 2024 325 339 10.1016/j.gr.2023.10.023
47 Green Technological Innovation, Green Finance, and Financial Development and Their Role in Green Total Factor Productivity: Empirical Insights from China - ScienceDirect.”.
48 Shen Y. Su Z.W. Malik M.Y. Umar M. Khan Z. Khan M. Does green investment, financial development and natural resources rent limit carbon emissions? A provincial panel analysis of China Sci. Total Environ. 755 Feb 2021 10.1016/J.SCITOTENV.2020.142538
49 Li Z.Z. Li R.Y.M. Malik M.Y. Murshed M. Khan Z. Umar M. Determinants of carbon emission in China: how good is green investment? Sustain. Prod. Consum. 27 2021 392 401 10.1016/j.spc.2020.11.008
50 Ramzan M. Razi U. Quddoos M.U. Adebayo T.S. Do green innovation and financial globalization contribute to the ecological sustainability and energy transition in the United Kingdom? Policy insights from a bootstrap rolling window approach Sustain. Dev. 31 1 2023 393 414 10.1002/SD.2399
51 Münch C. Benz L.A. Hartmann E. Exploring the circular economy paradigm: a natural resource-based view on supplier selection criteria J. Purch. Supply Manag. 28 4 2022 100793 10.1016/j.pursup.2022.100793
52 Zhang Y. Liu Z. Baloch Z.A. Combining effects of private participation and green finance for renewable energy: growth of economy as mediating tool Renew. Energy 195 2022 1028 1036 10.1016/j.renene.2022.05.086
