Three Dimensions of Green Industrial Policy in the Context of Climate Change and Sustainable Development

Abstract

Climate change has taken an increasingly important space in the development agenda. However, whether most countries can meet the challenge of mitigating climate change while simultaneously ensuring growth and poverty reduction remains debatable. This research contributes to the growing literature at the intersection of environment sustainability and economic/industrial development by identifying three dimensions of Green Industrial Policy (GIP), which rely on different approaches to mitigate climate change. Those three dimensions are: (i) the consumption-centred dimension; (ii) the firm-level sustainability dimension, (iii) the productionist innovation-driven dimension. This paper then applies this green industrial policy framework and examines the implications of pursuing different levels of GIP by drawing on a country case study (Ecuador). Two main findings arise from this study. Firstly, a greener consumption is necessary but can hardly be achieved without industrial policies to stimulate green manufacturing and low carbon innovation. Green industrial policy therefore has a central role to play in the structural transformation towards a low carbon future. Secondly, a holistic and complementary approach is needed across the three dimensions of green industrial policy to ensure a coherent and developmental transition towards a low carbon economy.

The Stock Performance of Financial Institutions After the Paris Agreement: The Case in China

“…The Paris Agreement provides a sound policy basis. In the long run, this will lead to higher equity returns for financial institutions [3].…”

The Development of Green Bond in Developing Countries: Insights from Southeast Asia Market Participants

“…Besides the several challenges for accomplishing these goals, including a lack of political will, weak capacity and technical availabilities, as well as inadequate managerial mechanisms, the SDGs agenda requires sufficient financial support, especially from the private sector, to deal with pollution and climate damages, caused by business and manufacturing operations. However, the possibility of accessing available financial resources for funding has not yet been effectively resolved and the need for green investments has grown since there was a huge investment gap, currently estimated at nearly 200 billion euros per year to fulfill those SDGs (Anzolin and Lebdioui 2021 ).…”

“…Although the GB has been recognized as the advanced financial instrument that can be used to address the uncertainties caused by pollution and climate damages (Anzolin and Lebdioui 2021 ), while also maintaining the financial efficiency (Reboredo and Ugolini 2020 ), GB markets in developing countries have still not been standardized (Tolliver et al 2020 ; Choudhury et al 2021 ), and thus there is a requirement for stronger institutional legitimacy and pressure from the wide range of actors in the markets. In order to shed light on the institutional support that purportedly focuses on GB, this research examines the perspectives of market participants in the financial markets of Southeast Asian countries.…”

Does Digital Economy Contribute to Regional Carbon Productivity? Evidence of China

“…Existing literature mainly analyzes regional carbon productivity from the dimensions of environmental regulation [7], industrial structure [8], policy support [9,10], and financial development [11]. Direct research on digital economy and regional carbon productivity is rare, and more literature concentrates on the connection between digital economy and innovation efficiency [12].…”