KaydedilenlerDerginizi ekleyin

Dergiler / TESAM Akademi Dergisi / 2026 / Cilt: 13 Sayı: 2

Sürdürülebilirlik İçin İnovasyon: Yeşil ve Finansal İnovasyon Yeşil Büyümeyi Nasıl Şekillendiriyor

Innovation for Sustainability: How Green and Financial Innovation Shape Green Growth

Huriye Gonca Diler(AFYON KOCATEPE ÜNİVERSİTESİ)0000-0002-9937-1324
Münevvere Yıldız(AFYON KOCATEPE ÜNİVERSİTESİ)0000-0001-9541-2603
N. Serap Vurur(AFYON KOCATEPE ÜNİVERSİTESİ)0000-0003-4339-6474
Letife Özdemir(AFYON KOCATEPE ÜNİVERSİTESİ)0000-0002-8636-2277
Sayfa
841–868
Yayın Tarihi
2026-07-31
🏛️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)

OECD ülkelerinde bu faktörlerin etkilerine ilişkin araştırmalar sınırlıdır ve mevcut bulgular sıklıkla etkilerin yönü ve büyüklüğü konusunda tutarsızdır.

📌 3 Maddede Bu Makale

🎯
Amaç & Hipotez:Günümüzde sürdürülebilirlik stratejileri, küresel ekonomilerin ve endüstrilerin dönüşümünde kritik bir rol oynamaktadır.
📊
Temel Bulgular & Veri:OECD ülkelerinde bu faktörlerin etkilerine ilişkin araştırmalar sınırlıdır ve mevcut bulgular sıklıkla etkilerin yönü ve büyüklüğü konusunda tutarsızdır.
💡
Sonuç & Katkı:Bu araştırma, politika yapıcıların sürdürülebilir ekonomik büyümeyi ilerletecek daha etkili stratejiler geliştirmelerine yardımcı olmaktadır.
🔬Tür:Modelleme & Sayısal Simülasyon
📍Kapsam:2021 Verileri
⚙️Değişkenler:Yeşil Ekonomik Büyüme · Yeşil İnovasyon · Finansal İnovasyon

Özet

Günümüzde sürdürülebilirlik stratejileri, küresel ekonomilerin ve endüstrilerin dönüşümünde kritik bir rol oynamaktadır. Çevresel unsurları önceliklendiren yeşil ekonomik büyüme (YEB) giderek daha fazla önem kazanmaktadır. Finansal ve yeşil inovasyon, YEB’in temel itici güçleri olarak tanımlanmaktadır. OECD ülkelerinde bu faktörlerin etkilerine ilişkin araştırmalar sınırlıdır ve mevcut bulgular sıklıkla etkilerin yönü ve büyüklüğü konusunda tutarsızdır. Bu çalışma, finansal ile yeşil inovasyonun OECD ülkelerinde YEB üzerindeki etkilerini kapsamlı şekilde incelemeyi amaçlamaktadır. 1996–2021 dönemine ait 15 OECD ülkesinin yıllık verileri kullanılarak panel veri teknikleri uygulanmıştır. Değişkenler arasında uzun dönemli ilişki olup olmadığını belirlemek için eşbütünleşme testleri yapılmıştır. Daha sonra uzun dönem katsayıları panel çeyrek regresyon yöntemiyle tahmin edilmiştir. Bulguların sağlamlığı OLS ve sabit etkiler modelleriyle test edilmiştir. Nedensellik testleri ise değişkenler arasındaki yönlü ilişkileri incelemiştir. Yeşil inovasyonun uzun dönemde YEB üzerinde olumlu bir etkisi varken, finansal inovasyonun ise olumsuz etkisi söz konusudur. Nedensellik testleri tüm değişkenler arasında çift yönlü nedensellik ilişkisini ortaya koymuştur. Politika önerileri arasında yeşil tahvillerin ve sürdürülebilir finansman araçlarının teşviki, çevresel riskleri dikkate alan düzenlemelerle yeşil yatırımların desteklenmesi ve blok zincir tabanlı karbon piyasaları gibi teknolojilerle yeşil projelere erişimin genişletilmesi yer almaktadır. Bu araştırma, politika yapıcıların sürdürülebilir ekonomik büyümeyi ilerletecek daha etkili stratejiler geliştirmelerine yardımcı olmaktadır.

Abstract

In today's world, sustainability strategies play a critical role in the transformation of global economies and industries. Green Economic Growth (GEG), which prioritizes environmental factors, is gaining increasing importance. Financial and green innovation are identified as the main driving forces behind GEG. However, research on the effects of these factors in OECD countries remains limited, and existing findings often show inconsistencies regarding the direction and magnitude of these effects. This study aims to comprehensively examine the impact of financial and green innovation on GEG in OECD countries. Using annual data from 15 OECD countries for the period 1996–2021, panel data techniques are applied. Cointegration tests are conducted to determine the presence of long-run relationships among the variables. Subsequently, long-run coefficients are estimated using the panel quantile regression method. The robustness of the findings is tested through OLS and fixed effects models. Additionally, causality tests are employed to explore the directional relationships between the variables. The results indicate that green innovation has a positive long-run effect on GEG, whereas financial innovation exerts a negative impact. Causality tests reveal bidirectional relationships among all variables. Policy recommendations include the promotion of green bonds and sustainable finance instruments, support for green investments through regulations that take environmental risks into account, and the expansion of access to green projects via technologies such as blockchain-based carbon markets. This research provides valuable insights for policymakers in designing more effective strategies to foster sustainable economic growth.

🔖

Bu Makaleye Atıf Yap

Diler, H. G., Yıldız, M., Vurur, N. S., Özdemir, L. (2026). Sürdürülebilirlik İçin İnovasyon: Yeşil ve Finansal İnovasyon Yeşil Büyümeyi Nasıl Şekillendiriyor. TESAM Akademi Dergisi, Cilt: 13 Sayı: 2, 841–868. https://doi.org/10.30626/tesamakademi.1791810

📄 Tam Metin PDF Okuyucu

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

Kaynakça (56)

  1. Acemoglu, D., Akcigit, U., Hanley, D., & Kerr, W. (2016). Transition to clean technology. Journal of Political Economy, 124(1), 52–104. DOI: 10.1086/684511
  2. Afan, B. (2024). Sustainable development through green transition in EU countries: New evidence from panel quantile regression. Journal of Environmental Management, 365, 121545. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2024.121545
  3. Afshan, S., & Yaqoob, T. (2022). The potency of eco-innovation, natural resource and financial development on ecological footprint: A quantile-ARDL-based evidence from China. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 29(33), 50675–50685. DOI: 10.1007/s11356-022-19471-w
  4. Ahmed, F., Kousar, S., Pervaiz, A., Trinidad-Segovia, J. E., del Pilar Casado-Belmonte, M., & Ahmed, W. (2022). Role of green innovation, trade and energy to promote green economic growth: A case of South Asian nations. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 29(5), 6871–6885. DOI: 10.1007/s11356-021-15881-4
  5. Alfalih, A. A., & Hadj, T. B. (2024). Ecological impact assessment of green technological innovation under different thresholds of human capital in G20 countries. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 201, 123276. DOI: 10.1016/j.jik.2022.100286
  6. Anwar, A., Huong, N. T. T., Sharif, A., Kilinc-Ata, N., Çitil, M., & Demirtaş, F. (2024). Is a green world real or a dream? A look at green growth from green innovation and financial development: Evidence from fragile economies. Geological Journal, 59(1), 98–112. DOI: 10.1002/gj.4844
  7. Banday, U. J., & Kocoglu, M. (2023). Modelling simultaneous relationships between human development, energy, and environment: Fresh evidence from panel quantile regression. Journal of the Knowledge Economy, 14, 1559–1581. DOI: 10.1007/s13132-022-00921-2
  8. Bo, L., Yunbao, X., Chengbo, D., Chao, T., Guangde, Z., & Usman, A. (2022). Financial deepening, financial innovation, and education as new determinants of green growth in China. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 30(9), 23568–23577.
  9. Bortoluzzo, A. B., Ciganda, R. R., & Bortoluzzo, M. (2024). Determinant factors of banking profitability: An application of quantile regression for panel data. Future Business Journal, 10, 56. DOI: 10.1186/s43093-024-00347-z
  10. Cao, J., Law, S. H., Samad, A. R. B. A., Mohamad, W. N. B. W., Wang, J., & Yang, X. (2021). Impact of financial development and technological innovation on the volatility of green growth—Evidence from China. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 28, 48053–48069. DOI: 10.1007/s11356-021-13828-3
  11. Chen, R., Ramzan, M., Hafeez, M., & Ullah, S. (2023). Green innovation–green growth nexus in BRICS: Does financial globalization matter? Journal of Innovation & Knowledge, 8(1), 100286. DOI: 10.1016/j.jik.2022.100286
  12. Dale, G., Mathai, M. V., & de Oliveira, J. A. P. (Eds.). (2016). Green growth: Ideology, political economy and the alternatives. Zed Books.
  13. Dumitrescu, E. I., & Hurlin, C. (2012). Testing for Granger non-causality in heterogeneous panels. Economic Modelling, 29(4), 1450–1460. DOI: 10.1016/j.econmod.2012.02.014
  14. Granger, C. W. J. (1988). Some recent developments in a concept of causality. Journal of Econometrics, 39(1–2), 199–211. https://doi.org/10.1016/0304-4076(88)90045-0
  15. Hashmi, R., & Alam, K. (2019). Dynamic relationship among environmental regulation, innovation, CO₂ emissions, population, and economic growth in OECD countries: A panel investigation. Journal of Cleaner Production, 231, 1100–1109. DOI: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.05.325
  16. He, L., Chen, Y., & Li, J. (2018). A three-level framework for balancing the trade-offs among the energy, water, and air-emission implications within the life-cycle shale gas supply chains. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 133, 206–228. DOI: 10.1016/j.resconrec.2018.02.015
  17. He, L., Chen, Y., Zhao, H., Tian, P., Xue, Y., & Chen, L. (2018). Game-based analysis of energy-water nexus for identifying environmental impacts during shale gas operations under stochastic input. Science of the Total Environment, 627, 1585–1601. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.02.004
  18. Hickel, J., & Kallis, G. (2020). Is green growth possible? New Political Economy, 25(4), 469–486. DOI: 10.1080/13563467.2019.1598964
  19. Houssini, K., & Geng, Y. (2022). Measuring Morocco’s green growth performance. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 29(1), 1144–1154. DOI: 10.1007/s11356-021-15698-1
  20. İlarslan, K. (2025). Econometric Evidence on the Reflections of Political Risk on Stock Markets from a Developing Countries Perspective. Journal of TESAM Academy, 12(1), 217-241. DOI: 10.30626/ tesamakademi.1422381
  21. Jenkins, H., Alshareef, E., & Mohamad, A. (2023). The impact of corruption on commercial banks’ credit risk: Evidence from a panel quantile regression. International Journal of Finance & Economics, 28(2), 1364–1375. DOI: 10.1002/ijfe.2481
  22. Jiang, Z., Lyu, P., Ye, L., & Zhou, Y. W. (2020). Green innovation transformation, economic sustainability and energy consumption during China’s new normal stage. Journal of Cleaner Production, 273, 123044. DOI: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.123044
  23. JinRu, L., & Qamruzzaman, M. (2022). Nexus between environmental innovation, energy efficiency, and environmental sustainability in G7: What is the role of institutional quality? Frontiers in Environmental Science, 10, 860244. DOI: 10.3389/fenvs.2022.860244
  24. Kumar, P., & Ghodeswar, B. M. (2015). Factors affecting consumers’ green product purchase decisions. Marketing Intelligence & Planning, 33(3), 330–347. DOI: 10.1108/MIP-11-2014-0221
  25. Li, X., Shao, X., Chang, T., & Albu, L. L. (2022). Does digital finance promote the green innovation of China’s listed companies? Energy Economics, 114, 106254. DOI: 10.1016/j.eneco.2022.106254
  26. Lin, S., Zhou, Z., Hu, X., Chen, S., & Huang, J. (2024). How can urban economic complexity promote green economic growth in China? The perspective of green technology innovation and industrial structure upgrading. Journal of Cleaner Production, 450, 141807. DOI: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2024.141807
  27. Ling, G. L., Qu, Y., & Tseng, M. L. (2017). The interaction effects of environmental regulation and technological innovation on regional green growth performance. Journal of Cleaner Production, 162, 894–902. DOI: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.05.210
  28. Lisha, L., Mousa, S., Arnone, G., Muda, I., Huerta-Soto, R., & Shiming, Z. (2023). Natural resources, green innovation, fintech, and sustainability: A fresh insight from BRICS. Resources Policy, 80, 103119. DOI: 10.1016/j.resourpol.2022.103119
  29. Liu, X., Razzaq, A., Shahzad, M., & Irfan, M. (2022). Technological changes, financial development and ecological consequences: A comparative study of developed and developing economies. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 184, 122004. DOI: 10.1016/j.techfore.2022.122004
  30. Mensah, C. N., Long, X., Boamah, K. B., Bediako, I. A., Dauda, L., & Salman, M. (2018). The effect of innovation on CO₂ emissions of OECD countries from 1990 to 2014. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 25, 29678–29698. DOI: 10.1007/s11356-018-2968-0
  31. Münyas, T., Kaplan Yıldırım, R. & Kadooğlu Aydın, G. (2025). The Effect of FED Interest Rate Decisions on Country Risk Premiums and Stock Market. Journal of TESAM Academy, 12(2), 847-874. DOI: 10.30626/tesamakademi.1510364
  32. OECD. (2009). Declaration on green growth. https://legalinstruments.oecd.org/en/instruments/OECD-LEGAL-0374
  33. OECD. (2010). The OECD innovation strategy: Getting a head start on tomorrow. OECD Publishing.
  34. OECD. (2012). Green growth and developing countries – Consultation draft. https://www.oecd.org/dac/environmentdevelopment/50559116.pdf
  35. OECD. (2023). OECD economic outlook. https://www.oecd.org/economic-outlook/june-2023/
  36. Pesaran, M. H. (2004). General diagnostic tests for cross-section dependence in panels. SSRN Electronic Journal. DOI: 10.2139/ssrn.572504
  37. Pesaran, M. H. (2007). A simple panel unit root test in the presence of cross-section dependence. Journal of Applied Econometrics, 22, 265–312. DOI: 10.1002/jae.951
  38. Pesaran, M. H., & Yamagata, T. (2008). Testing slope homogeneity in large panels. Journal of Econometrics, 142, 50–93. DOI: 10.1016/j.jeconom.2007.05.010
  39. Qamruzzaman, M., & Karim, S. (2024). Unveiling the synergy: Green finance, technological innovation, green energy, and carbon neutrality. PLOS One, 19(10). DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0308170
  40. Sadiq, M., Hassan, S. T., Khan, I., & Rahman, M. M. (2024). Policy uncertainty, renewable energy, corruption and CO₂ emissions nexus in BRICS-1 countries: A panel CS-ARDL approach. Environment, Development and Sustainability, 26, 21595–21621. DOI: 10.1007/s10668-023-03546-w
  41. Safdar, S., Khan, A., & Andlib, Z. (2022). Impact of good governance and natural resource rent on economic and environmental sustainability: An empirical analysis for South Asian economies. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 29(55), 82948–82965. DOI: 10.1007/s11356-022-21401-9
  42. Salman, M., Long, X., Dauda, L., & Mensah, C. N. (2019). The impact of institutional quality on economic growth and carbon emissions: Evidence from Indonesia, South Korea and Thailand. Journal of Cleaner Production, 241, 118331. DOI: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.118331
  43. Saqib, N., Usman, M., Mahmood, H., Abbas, S., Ahmad, F., Mihai, D., & Mallek, R. S. (2023). The moderating role of technological innovation and renewable energy on CO₂ emission in OECD countries: Evidence from panel quantile regression approach. Economic Research – Ekonomska Istraživanja, 36(3), 2168720. DOI: /10.1080/1331677X.2023.2168720
  44. Shahzad, M., Qu, Y., Zafar, A. U., Rehman, S. U., & Islam, T. (2020). Exploring the influence of knowledge management process on corporate sustainable performance through green innovation. Journal of Knowledge Management, 24(9), 2079–2106. DOI: 10.1108/JKM-11-2019-0624
  45. Su, Y., & Gao, X. (2022). Revealing the effectiveness of green technological progress and financial innovation on green economic growth: The role of environmental regulation. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 29(48), 72991–73000. DOI: 10.21203/rs.3.rs-1559390/v1
  46. Sun, Y., Chang, H., Vasbieva, D. G., & Andlib, Z. (2022). Economic performance, investment in energy resources, foreign trade, and natural resources volatility nexus: Evidence from China's provincial data. Resources Policy, 78, 102913. DOI: 10.1016/j.resourpol.2022.102913
  47. Ullah, S., Ozturk, I., Majeed, M. T., & Ahmad, W. (2021). Do technological innovations have symmetric or asymmetric effects on environmental quality? Evidence from Pakistan. Journal of Cleaner Production, 316, 128239. DOI: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.128239
  48. United Nations. (2012). The world we want. https://www.un.org/millenniumgoals/pdf/UNDG%202nd%20dialogues.pdf
  49. Van der Ploeg, R., & Withagen, C. (2013). Green growth, green paradox and the global economic crisis. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions, 6, 116–119. DOI: 10.1016/j.eist.2012.11.003
  50. Voumik, L. C., Sultana, R., & Dey, R. (2023). Going away or getting green in BRICS: Investigating the EKC hypothesis with human capital index, nuclear energy, urbanization, and service sectors on the environment. World Development Sustainability, 2, 100060. DOI: 10.1016/j.wds.2023.100060
  51. Westerlund, J. (2007). Testing for error correction in panel data. Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, 69(6), 709–748. DOI: 10.1111/j.1468-0084.2007.00477.x
  52. Zhang, D., Mohsin, M., Rasheed, A. K., Chang, Y., & Taghizadeh-Hesary, F. (2021). Public spending and green economic growth in BRI region: Mediating role of green finance. Energy Policy, 153, 112256. DOI: 10.1016/j.enpol.2021.112256
  53. Zhang, S., Wu, Z., Wang, Y., & Hao, Y. (2021). Fostering green development with green finance: An empirical study on the environmental effect of green credit policy in China. Journal of Environmental Management, 296, 113159. DOI: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2021.113159
  54. Zhang, Y. J., Peng, Y. L., Ma, C. Q., & Shen, B. (2017). Can environmental innovation facilitate carbon emissions reduction? Evidence from China. Energy Policy, 100, 18–28. DOI: 10.1016/j.enpol.2016.10.005
  55. Zhao, W., Hafeez, M., Maqbool, A., Ullah, S., & Sohail, S. (2021). Analysis of income inequality and environmental pollution in BRICS using fresh asymmetric approach. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 28, 51199–51209.DOI: 10.1007/s11356-021-14209-6
  56. Zhou, G., Zhu, J., & Luo, S. (2022). The impact of fintech innovation on green growth in China: Mediating effect of green finance. Ecological Economics, 193, 107308. DOI: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2021.107308