Climate Mitigation Pathways in E-7 Countries: The Interplay of Technology Exports, Renewable Energy Consumption, and Resource Productivity under Digitalization

Authors

  • Reza Yazdani * Department of Accounting, Technical and Vocational University (TVU), Tehran, Iran. https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5578-6595
  • Sunil Kumar Saha Department of Accounting and Finance, Anglia Ruskin University, Cambridge, United Kingdom.
  • Mahdieh Rezagholizadeh Department of Economy, Faculty of Economics and Administrative Science, University of Mazandaran, Babolsar, Iran. https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1172-4824

https://doi.org/10.48313/iee.vi.53

Abstract

This study investigates the determinants of environmental sustainability in E7 economies, emphasizing the novel role of digitalization as a moderating factor in the nexus between technology exports, renewable energy consumption, resource productivity, and ecological quality. Given the rising environmental pressures associated with rapid industrialization, this research contributes to the literature by integrating these variables within a unified framework using the load capacity factor as a comprehensive sustainability indicator. The analysis covers Brazil, China, India, Indonesia, Mexico, Russia, and Turkey over the period 2005-2024, employing the Dynamic Common Correlated Effects (DCCE) estimator to address cross-sectional dependence and heterogeneity. The findings reveal that technology exports negatively affect environmental quality, whereas renewable energy consumption, resource productivity, and digitalization improve sustainability. Importantly, digitalization mitigates the adverse impact of technology exports, strengthens the positive effect of renewable energy, and enhances the environmental benefits of resource productivity. Policymakers should align digital transformation with green industrial strategies. Expanding renewable energy and promoting resource efficiency remain essential for sustainable development.

Keywords:

Ecological sustainability, Renewable energy consumption, Technology exports, Resource productivity, Digitalization

References

  1. [1] Olanrewaju, V. O., & Kirikkaleli, D. (2026). How Do Green Technologies, Green Energy Consumption and Digitalization Influence Environmental Sustainability in E7 Economies? A Quantile-Based Analysis. Politická ekonomie, 74(1), 66–91. https://polek.vse.cz/pdfs/pol/2026/01/03.pdf
  2. [2] Meo, M. S., & Adebayo, T. S. (2025). Role of financial regulations and climate policy uncertainty in reducing CO2 emissions—an application of bootstrap subsample rolling-window Granger causality. Clean technologies and environmental policy, 27(6), 2377–2393. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10098-024-02991-z
  3. [3] Ullah, A., Ahmed, M., Raza, S. A., & Ali, S. (2021). A threshold approach to sustainable development: nonlinear relationship between renewable energy consumption, natural resource rent, and ecological footprint. Journal of environmental management, 295, 113073. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2021.113073
  4. [4] Su, C.-W., Xie, Y., Shahab, S., Faisal, C. M. N., Hafeez, M., & Qamri, G. M. (2021). Towards achieving sustainable development: role of technology innovation, technology adoption and CO2 emission for BRICS. International journal of environmental research and public health, 18(1), 277. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18010277
  5. [5] Irfan, M., Quddus, A., Shahzad, F., & Wang, Y. (2025). Do ICT trade balances and natural resources foster carbon emissions? The role of government effectiveness and green technology innovation. Structural change and economic dynamics, 72, 320–329. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.strueco.2024.12.007
  6. [6] Nathaniel, S. P., Solomon, C. J., Khudoykulov, K., & Fakher, H. A. (2026). Linking resource richness, digital economy, and clean energy to ecological footprint and load capacity factor in emerging markets. Natural resources forum (Vol. 50, No. 2, pp. 727-742). https://doi.org/10.1111/1477-8947.12590
  7. [7] Alola, A. A., & Adebayo, T. S. (2023). Are green resource productivity and environmental technologies the face of environmental sustainability in the Nordic region? Sustainable development, 31(2), 760–772. https://doi.org/10.1002/sd.2417
  8. [8] Li, R., Wang, Q., & others. (2023). Does renewable energy reduce per capita carbon emissions and per capita ecological footprint? New evidence from 130 countries. Energy strategy reviews, 49, 101121. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esr.2023.101121
  9. [9] Aydin, M., Degirmenci, T., & Yavuz, H. (2023). The influence of multifactor productivity, research and development expenditure, renewable energy consumption on ecological footprint in G7 countries: Testing the environmental Kuznets curve hypothesis. Environmental modeling & assessment, 28(4), 693–708. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10666-023-09879-0
  10. [10] Fakher, H.-A., Abedi, Z., Ahmadian, M., & Shaygani, B. (2018). Comparative examine the impact of financial development (based on money market and capital market) in the intensity of economic growth effects on the environmental performance. Environmental researches, 9(17), 133–146. https://dor.isc.ac/dor/20.1001.1.20089597.1397.9.17.17.4
  11. [11] Twum, A. K., Zhang, J., Ding, X., & Cobbinah, J. (2024). Advancing renewable energy strategies towards sustainable development goal 13: Insights from belt and road initiative (BRI) countries. Environment, development and sustainability, 1–32. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-024-05800-1
  12. [12] Mushafiq, M., & Prusak, B. (2023). Resource productivity and environmental degradation in EU-27 countries: context of material footprint. Environmental science and pollution research, 30(20), 58536–58552. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-023-26631-z
  13. [13] Afolabi, J. A. (2025). Towards carbon neutrality in Europe: The role of technology exports, renewable energy consumption, and resource productivity. Journal of environmental management, 395, 127862. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2025.127862
  14. [14] Shobande, O. A., & Ogbeifun, L. (2024). Exploring the criticality of natural resources management and technological innovations for ecological footprint in the OECD countries. The journal of developing areas, 58(1), 157–170. https://doi.org/10.1353/jda.2024.a924520
  15. [15] Bansal, S., Singh, S., & Nangia, P. (2022). Assessing the role of natural resource utilization in attaining select sustainable development goals in the era of digitalization. Resources policy, 79, 103040. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resourpol.2022.103040
  16. [16] Ha, L. T., Huong, T. T. L., & Thanh, T. T. (2022). Is digitalization a driver to enhance environmental performance? An empirical investigation of European countries. Sustainable production and consumption, 32, 230–247. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spc.2022.04.002
  17. [17] Usman, O., Ozkan, O., Alola, A. A., & Ghardallou, W. (2024). Energy security-related risks and the quest to attain USA’s net-zero emissions targets by 2050: A dynamic ARDL simulations modeling approach. Environmental science and pollution research, 31(12), 18797–18812. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-024-32124-4
  18. [18] Zambrano-Monserrate, M. A. (2024). Trust, corruption, and willingness to pay for improved environmental goods: An experimental analysis from a developing country. Social science quarterly, 105(3), 709–725. https://doi.org/10.1111/ssqu.13381
  19. [19] Fakher, H. A., & others. (2023). The impact of gross domestic product, financial development, energy consumption on environmental quality: with emphasis on six environmental indicators. Journal of natural environment, 76(2), 345–363. http//doi.org/10.22059/jne.2023.346356.2469
  20. [20] Ren, S., Hao, Y., & Wu, H. (2023). Digitalization and environment governance: does internet development reduce environmental pollution? Journal of environmental planning and management, 66(7), 1533–1562. https://doi.org/10.1080/09640568.2022.2033959
  21. [21] Saqib, N., Duran, I. A., & Ozturk, I. (2023). Unraveling the interrelationship of digitalization, renewable energy, and ecological footprints within the EKC framework: empirical insights from the United States. Sustainability, 15(13), 10663. https://doi.org/10.3390/su151310663
  22. [22] Chudik, A., & Pesaran, M. H. (2015). Common correlated effects estimation of heterogeneous dynamic panel data models with weakly exogenous regressors. Journal of econometrics, 188(2), 393–420. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeconom.2015.03.007
  23. [23] Pesaran, M. H., & Smith, R. (1995). Estimating long-run relationships from dynamic heterogeneous panels. Journal of econometrics, 68(1), 79–113. https://doi.org/10.1016/0304-4076(94)01644-F
  24. [24] Pesaran, M. H. (2006). Estimation and inference in large heterogeneous panels with a multifactor error structure. Econometrica, 74(4), 967–1012. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0262.2006.00692.x
  25. [25] Ditzen, J. (2018). Estimating dynamic common-correlated effects in Stata. The stata journal, 18(3), 585–617. https://doi.org/10.1177/1536867X1801800306
  26. [26] Chudik, A., & Pesaran, M. H. (2015). Large panel data models with cross-sectional dependence: A survey. In B. H. Baltagi (Ed.), The oxford handbook of panel data (pp. 3–45). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199940042.013.0001

Downloads

Published

2026-06-05

Issue

Vol. 2 No. 2 (2026): Innovations in Environmental Economics

Section

Articles

License

Copyright (c) 2025 Innovations in Environmental Economics

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

How to Cite

Climate Mitigation Pathways in E-7 Countries: The Interplay of Technology Exports, Renewable Energy Consumption, and Resource Productivity under Digitalization. (2026). Innovations in Environmental Economics , 2(2), 104-118. https://doi.org/10.48313/iee.vi.53

Similar Articles

11-20 of 32

You may also start an advanced similarity search for this article.