KaydedilenlerDerginizi ekleyin

Dergiler / Sosyoekonomi / 2026 / Cilt: 33 Sayı: 65

Finansal ve Teknolojik İnovasyonlar Çevresel Kaliteyi İyileştirir mi? AB Ülkelerinden Ampirik Kanıtlar

Do Financial and Technological Innovations Enhance Environmental Quality? Empirical Evidence from the EU Countries

Ahsen Emir Bulut(DOKUZ EYLÜL ÜNİVERSİTESİ, SOSYAL BİLİMLER ENSTİTÜSÜ)0000-0003-3475-9456
Mehtap Tunç(İKTİSADİ VE İDARİ BİLİMLER FAKÜLTESİ)0000-0002-0653-5079
Sayfa
315–334
Yayın Tarihi
2025-07-17
🏛️Bu makalenin bibliyografik verileri ve tam metin bağlantısı DergiPark üzerinden sağlanmıştır.
DergiPark Kaydı ↗
✨

Yapay Zeka Hızlı Bakış & Çıkarımlar

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(1 Cümlede Hızlı Çıkarım)

Ampirik sonuçlar, değişkenlerin etkilerinin eşbütünleşik olduğunu göstermektedir.

📌 3 Maddede Bu Makale

🎯
Amaç & Hipotez:Bu çalışma, 2001-2022 dönemi için Avrupa Birliği ülkeleri bağlamında finansal yenilikler (FI) ve teknolojik yeniliklerin (TI) karbondioksit (CO2) emisyonları üzerindeki uzun dönem etkilerini Westerlund eşbütünleşmesi, artırılmış ortalama grup tahmincisi (AMG) ve ardından Dumitrescu-Hurlin nedensellik testleri ile araştırmaktadır.
📊
Temel Bulgular & Veri:Finansal inovasyon vekil değişken olarak geniş para arzının dar para arzına oranı (M3/M1) ve teknolojik inovasyon olarak toplam patent sayısı kullanılmıştır.
💡
Sonuç & Katkı:Ampirik sonuçlar, değişkenlerin etkilerinin eşbütünleşik olduğunu göstermektedir.
🔬Tür:Araştırma Makalesi
📍Kapsam:2001-2022 Verileri
⚙️Değişkenler:Finansal İnovasyon · Teknolojik İnovasyon · Çevresel Kalite

Özet

Bu çalışma, 2001-2022 dönemi için Avrupa Birliği ülkeleri bağlamında finansal yenilikler (FI) ve teknolojik yeniliklerin (TI) karbondioksit (CO2) emisyonları üzerindeki uzun dönem etkilerini Westerlund eşbütünleşmesi, artırılmış ortalama grup tahmincisi (AMG) ve ardından Dumitrescu-Hurlin nedensellik testleri ile araştırmaktadır. Finansal inovasyon vekil değişken olarak geniş para arzının dar para arzına oranı (M3/M1) ve teknolojik inovasyon olarak toplam patent sayısı kullanılmıştır. Ampirik sonuçlar, değişkenlerin etkilerinin eşbütünleşik olduğunu göstermektedir. Finansal ve teknolojik inovasyonlar CO2 emisyonlarını azaltmaktadır. Sonuçlar, LGDP'nin CO₂ emisyonlarındaki artışla ilişkili olduğunu, LGDP'nin karesinin ise CO₂ emisyonlarındaki azalmayla bağlantılı olduğunu göstermektedir. Bu bulgular, Çevresel Kuznets Eğrisi hipotezi ile uyumludur. Ayrıca Dumitrescu-Hurlin nedensellik sonuçlarına göre finansal ve teknolojik inovasyonlardan CO2 emisyonlarına doğru tek yönlü nedensellik ilişkisi tespit edilmiştir. Bu sonuçlar ışığında, Avrupa Birliği’nin 2030 yılı hedefleri doğrultusunda fon ve hibeler artırılmalıdır. Şirketlerin ve kamu otoritelerinin yeni nesil düşük karbonlu teknolojilere yatırım yapmaları ve Avrupa'nın iklim nötrlüğüne geçişini desteklemeleri için finansal teşvikler sağlanmalıdır.

Abstract

This paper aims to investigate the long-term effects of financial innovations (FI) and technological innovations (TI) on carbon dioxide emissions (CO2) in the EU from 2001 to 2022. The ratio of the aggregate money supply to narrow money (M3/M1) is used as a proxy for FI, and the total number of patents is used as a measure of technological innovation. The research applies Westerlund cointegration, augmented mean group estimator (AMG), and Dumitrescu-Hurlin causality tests. The empirical results demonstrate that the variables are cointegrated, and FI and TI contribute to reducing CO2 emissions. Additionally, the study finds that an increase in LGDP is associated with higher CO2 emissions. At the same time, the square of LGDP is linked to a reduction in CO2 emissions, supporting the Environmental Kuznets Curve (EKC) hypothesis. According to the Dumitrescu-Hurlin causality results, a unidirectional causality relationship exists between financial and technological innovations and CO2 emissions. These findings stress the importance of increased funding and grants to align with the Union's 2030 targets. Financial incentives should promote investments in the next generation of low-carbon technologies, supporting Europe's shift towards climate neutrality.

🔖

Bu Makaleye Atıf Yap

Bulut, A. E., Tunç, M. (2025). Finansal ve Teknolojik İnovasyonlar Çevresel Kaliteyi İyileştirir mi? AB Ülkelerinden Ampirik Kanıtlar. Sosyoekonomi, Cilt: 33 Sayı: 65, 315–334. https://doi.org/10.17233/sosyoekonomi.2025.03.15

📄 Tam Metin PDF Okuyucu

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

Kaynakça (76)

  1. Adebayo, T.S. et al. (2023), “Endorsing sustainable development in BRICS: The role of technological innovation, renewable energy consumption, and natural resources in limiting carbon emission”, Science of the Total Environment, 859, 160181.
  2. Ahmed, U. et al. (2016), “Impact of intention and technology awareness on transport industry’s E-service: Evidence from an emerging economy”, The Journal of Industrial Distribution & Business, 7(3), 13-18.
  3. Ahmed, Z. et al. (2022), “How do green energy technology investments, technological innovation, and trade globalisation enhance green energy supply and stimulate environmental sustainability in the G7 countries?”, Gondwana Research, 112, 105-115.
  4. Al Mamun, M. et al. (2018), “Financial markets, innovations and cleaner energy production in OECD countries”, Energy Economics, 72, 236-254.
  5. Al-Mulali, U. et al. (2015), “The influence of economic growth, urbanization, trade openness, financial development, and renewable energy on pollution in Europe”, Natural Hazards, 79, 621-644.
  6. Apergis, N. et al. (2013), “The relationship between international financial reporting standards, carbon emissions, and R&D expenditures: Evidence from European manufacturing firms”, Ecological Economics, 88, 57-66.
  7. Banelienė, R. & R. Strazdas (2023), “Green innovation for competitiveness: impact on GDP growth in the European Union”, Contemporary Economics, 17(1), 92-108.
  8. Bianco, V. et al. (2019), “Understanding energy consumption and carbon emissions in Europe: A focus on inequality issues”, Energy, 170, 120-130.
  9. Bindi, G. (2019), “Technological innovation and the environment, an analysis based on patent counts”, Master’s Thesis, Lund University, Sweden.
  10. Charfeddine, L. & M. Kahia (2019), “The impact of renewable energy consumption and financial development on CO2 emissions and economic growth in the MENA region is a panel vector Renewable autoregressive energy (PVAR) analysis”, 139, 198-213.
  11. Chen, W. & Y. Lei (2018), “The impacts of renewable energy and technological innovation on environment-energy-growth nexus: New evidence from a panel quantile regression”, Renewable Energy, 123, 1-14.
  12. Cheng, C. et al. (2021), “How does technological innovation mitigate CO2 emissions in OECD countries? Heterogeneous analysis using panel quantile regression”, Journal of Environmental Management, 280, 111818.
  13. Cho, J.H. & S.Y. Sohn (2018), “A novel decomposition analysis of green patent applications for evaluating R&D efforts to reduce CO2 emissions from fossil fuel energy consumption”, Journal of Cleaner Production, 193, 290-299.
  14. Churchill, S. et al. (2019), “R&D intensity and carbon emissions in the G7: 1870-2014”, Energy Economics, 80, 30-37.
  15. Deka, A. et al. (2023), “The effect of GDP, renewable energy and total energy supply on carbon emissions in the EU-27: new evidence from panel GMM”, Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 30(10), 28206-28216.
  16. Di Febo, E. et al. (2024), “Environment and Digitalization: The New Paradigms in the European Stock Markets”, Economies, 12(3), 65.
  17. Dumitrescu, E.I. & C. Hurlin (2012), “Testing for Granger non-causality in heterogeneous panels”, Economic Modelling, 29(4), 1450-1460.
  18. Dunne, J.P. & E. Kasekende (2018), “Financial innovation and money demand: Evidence from Sub‐Saharan Africa”, South African Journal of Economics, 86(4), 428-448.
  19. Erdem, E. et al. (2010), “Exchange rate uncertainty and agricultural trade: Panel cointegration analysis for Turkey”, Agricultural Economics, 41(6), 537-543.
  20. European Commission (2018), Proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council setting CO2 emission performance standards for new heavy-duty vehicles,, 12.07.2024.
  21. European Commission (2023), Climate Action Progress Report,, 12.07.2024.
  22. European Environment Agency (2024),, 12.07.2024.
  23. Eurostat (2024), Database,, 12.07.2024.
  24. Flammer, C. (2021), “Corporate green bonds”, Journal of Financial Economics, 142(2), 499-516.
  25. Friede, G. et al. (2015), “ESG and financial performance: aggregated evidence from more than 2000 empirical studies”, Journal of Sustainable Finance & Investment, 5(4), 210-233.
  26. Guliyev, H. (2024), “Determinants of ecological footprint in European countries: Fresh insight from Bayesian model averaging for panel data analysis”, Science of The Total Environment, 912, 169455.
  27. Huo, C. et al. (2022), “Linking responsible leadership and green innovation: the role of knowledge sharing and leader-member exchange”, Frontiers in Environmental Science, 10, 945817.
  28. Imran, M. et al. (2022), “The influence of digital economy and society index on sustainable development indicators: The case of European Union”, Sustainability, 14(18), 11130.
  29. Jabin, N. et al. (2015), “Climate change adaptation provisions for the agricultural sector in Malaysia”, International Journal of Global Warming, 7(3), 336-348.
  30. Jamshidi, N. et al. (2023), “Financial innovation and environmental quality: Fresh empirical evidence from the EU Countries”, Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 30(29), 73372-73392.
  31. Jia, Z. et al. (2021), “Economic Policy uncertainty and financial innovation: Is there any affiliation?”, Frontiers in Psychology, 12, 631834.
  32. Jiang, C. & X. Ma (2019), “The impact of financial development on carbon emissions: a global perspective”, Sustainability, 11(19), 5241.
  33. Karimli, T. et al. (2024), “The Globalization and Ecological Footprint in European Countries: Correlation or Causation?”, Research in Globalization, 8, 100208.
  34. Kasman, A. & Y.S. Duman (2015), “CO2 emissions, economic growth, energy consumption, trade and urbanization in new EU member and candidate countries: a panel data analysis”, Economic Modelling, 44, 97-103.
  35. Khan, S. et al. (2021), “Technological innovation and environmental taxes toward a carbon-free economy: An empirical study in the context of COP-21”, Journal of Environmental Management, 298, 113418.
  36. Kihombo, S. et al. (2021), “Linking financial development, economic growth, and ecological footprint: what is the role of technological innovation?”, Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 28(43), 61235-61245.
  37. Kirikkaleli, D. & T.S. Adebayo (2024), “Political risk and environmental quality in Brazil: role of green finance and green innovation”, International Journal of Finance & Economics, 29(2), 1205-1218.
  38. Kirikkaleli, D. et al. (2023), “Does patents on environmental technologies matter for the ecological footprint in the USA? Evidence from the novel Fourier ARDL approach”, Geoscience Frontiers, 14(4), 101564.
  39. Kirikkaleli, D. et al. (2023), “Economic complexity and environmental sustainability in eastern European economy: Evidence from novel Fourier approach”, Regional Sustainability, 4(4), 349-358.
  40. Koçak, E. & Z.Ş. Ulucak (2019), “The effect of energy R&D expenditures on CO2 emission reduction: estimation of the STIRPAT model for OECD countries”, Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 26, 14328-14338.
  41. Kogan, L. et al. (2017), “Technological innovation, resource allocation, and growth”, The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 132(2), 665-712.
  42. Lee, J.W. & T. Brahmasrene (2013), “Investigating the influence of tourism on economic growth and carbon emissions: Evidence from panel analysis of the European Union”, Tourism Management, 38, 69-76.
  43. Liu, H. et al. (2023), “Linkage among urbanization, energy consumption, economic growth and carbon Emissions. Panel data analysis for China using ARDL model”, Fuel, 332, 126122.
  44. Naseem, S. et al. (2023), “Exploring the optical impact of information communication technology and economic growth on CO2 emission in BRICS countries”, Optik, 273, 170339.
  45. Omri, A. et al. (2015), “Financial development, environmental quality, trade and economic growth: What causes what in MENA countries”, Energy Economics, 48, 242-252.
  46. Onofrei, M. et al. (2022), “The relationship between economic growth and CO2 emissions in EU countries: A cointegration analysis”, Frontiers in Environmental Science, 10, 934885.
  47. Our World in Data (2024), Primary Energy Consumption Data,, 12.07.2024.
  48. P.R. Shukla et al. (2022), “Climate Change 2022: Mitigation of Climate Change”, Contribution of Working Group III to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), Cambridge University Press.
  49. Pesaran, M.H. (2015), “Testing weak cross-sectional dependence in large panels”, Econometric Reviews, 34(6-10), 1089-1117.
  50. Piracha, A. & M.T. Chaudhary (2022), “Urban air pollution, urban heat island and human health: a review of the literature”, Sustainability, 14(15), 9234.
  51. Raihan, A. et al. (2022), “Relationship between economic growth, renewable energy use, technological innovation, and carbon emission toward achieving Malaysia’s Paris agreement”, Environment Systems and Decisions, 42(4), 586-607.
  52. Rout, S.K. et al. (2022), “The role of technological innovation and diffusion, energy consumption and financial development in affecting ecological footprint in BRICS: an empirical analysis”, Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 29, 25318-25335.
  53. Shahbaz, M. et al. (2018), “Environmental degradation in France: the effects of FDI, financial development, and energy innovations”, Energy Economics, 74, 843-857.
  54. Simionescu, M. et al. (2020), “Renewable energy and economic performance in the context of the European Green Deal”, Energies, 13(23), 6440.
  55. Sun, H. et al. (2021), “Energy efficiency: The role of technological innovation and knowledge spillover”, Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 167, 120659.
  56. Tian, J.F. et al. (2020), “Corporate innovation and environmental investment: The moderating role of institutional environment”, Advances in Climate Change Research, 11(2), 85-91.
  57. Tran, T.L. et al. (2023), “Digital skill types and economic performance in the EU27 region, 2020-2021”, Regional Statistics, 13(3), 536-558.
  58. Ulucak, R. (2021), “Renewable energy, technological innovation and the environment: a novel dynamic auto-regressive distributive lag simulation”, Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 150, 111433.
  59. Ursavas, U. et al. (2024), “Balancing growth and sustainability: The long‐run impact of financial and technological innovations on India's ecological footprint”, in: Natural Resources Forum, Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
  60. Villanthenkodath, M.A. & M.K. Mahalik (2022), “Technological innovation and environmental quality nexus in India: does inward remittance matter?”, Journal of Public Affairs, 22(1), e2291.
  61. Westerlund, J. (2007), “Testing for error correction in panel data”, Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, 69(6), 709-748.
  62. World Bank (2024), World Development Indicators,, 12.07.2024.
  63. Yii, K.J. & C. Geetha (2017), “The nexus between technology innovation and CO2 emissions in Malaysia: evidence from Granger causality test”, Energy Procedia, 105, 3118-3124.
  64. Yu, Y. & Y. Du (2019), “Impact of technological innovation on CO2 emissions and emissions trend prediction on ‘New Normal ' economy in China”, Atmospheric Pollution Research, 10(1), 152-161.
  65. Zafar, M.W. et al. (2019), “The impact of natural resources, human capital, and foreign direct investment on the ecological footprint: the case of the United States”, Resources Policy, 63, 101428.
  66. Zameer, H. et al. (2020), “Analyzing the association between innovation, economic growth, and environment: divulging the importance of FDI and trade openness in India”, Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 27, 29539-29553.
  67. Zhan, Y. et al. (2023), “Effects of green finance and financial innovation on environmental quality: new empirical evidence from China”, Economic Research - Ekonomska Istraživanja, 36(3), 2164034.
  68. Zhang, H. (2021), “Technology innovation, economic growth and carbon emissions in the context of carbon neutrality: evidence from BRICS”, Sustainability, 13(20), 11138.
  69. Zhang, N. et al. (2016), “Carbon emissions dynamics, efficiency gains, and technological innovation in China's industrial sectors”, Energy, 99, 10-19.
  70. Zhang, X. et al. (2020), “Manufacturers’ green investment in a competitive market with a common retailer”, Journal of Cleaner Production, 276, 123164.
  71. European Commission (2018), Proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council setting CO2 emission performance standards for new heavy-duty vehicles,, 12.07.2024.
  72. European Commission (2023), Climate Action Progress Report,, 12.07.2024.
  73. European Environment Agency (2024),, 12.07.2024.
  74. Eurostat (2024), Database,, 12.07.2024.
  75. Our World in Data (2024), Primary Energy Consumption Data,, 12.07.2024.
  76. World Bank (2024), World Development Indicators,, 12.07.2024.