Toward a Greener Future: Investigating the Environmental Quality of Non-Green Trading in OECD Countries


  • Anke van Ledden Department of Environmental Economics, Institute for Environmental Studies, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam 1081 HV, Netherlands
  • Muhlis Can Social Science Research Lab BETA Akademi, Istanbul, Turkey
  • Jan Brusselaers Department of Environmental Economics, Institute for Environmental Studies, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam 1081 HV, Netherlands



Climate change, Environmental degradation, International trade, Non-green trade openness index , Environmental kuznets curve, Greenhouse gas emissions


International trade is recognized as a key contributor to environmental degradation. However, researchers and policymakers do not distinguish between the trade of green and non-green products. The Non-Green Trade Openness Index was developed to examine the effect of non-green products on environmental quality. This study examines the effect of trading non-green products on environmental quality for 37 member countries of the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) from 2003 to 2016 in the context of the Environmental Kuznets Curve (EKC) framework. The results of the long-run estimation techniques employed (FMOLS, DOLS, Fixed and Random effects) confirm the EKC hypothesis and show a negative relationship between the Non-Green Trade Openness Index and greenhouse gas emissions, which serves as a proxy for environmental quality. This implies that when there is more non-green trade in OECD member countries, greenhouse gas emissions within these countries decrease. Dividing green and non-green products is important, empowering practitioners and policymakers to make informed choices and define a strategy for a sustainable future. Additionally, policy recommendations are provided to support policymakers in their efforts to combat climate change.


Download data is not yet available.


  1. Can, M., Oluc, I., Sturm, B., Guzel, I., Gavurova, B., and Popp, J. (2022). Nexus between Trading Non-green Products and Environment: Introducing Non-green Trade Openness Index, Frontiers in Environmental Science, Vol. 10. doi:10.3389/fenvs.2022.950453.
  2. Maulidar, P., Fitriyani, F., Sasmita, N. R., Hardi, I., and Idroes, G. M. (2024). Exploring Indonesia’s CO2 Emissions: The Impact of Agriculture, Economic Growth, Capital and Labor, Grimsa Journal of Business and Economics Studies, Vol. 1, No. 1, 43–55. doi:10.61975/gjbes.v1i1.22.
  3. IPCC. (2023). Synthesis Report of the IPCC Sixth Assessment Report (AR6): Longer Report.
  4. Idroes, G. M., Hardi, I., Nasir, M., Gunawan, E., Maulidar, P., and Maulana, A. R. R. (2023). Natural Disasters and Economic Growth in Indonesia, Ekonomikalia Journal of Economics, Vol. 1, No. 1, 33–39. doi:10.60084/eje.v1i1.55.
  5. Xu, A., Enxhi, T., Marc, B., Francesco, B., and José-Antonio, M. (2021). The Carbon Content of International Trade, from
  6. International Energy Agency. (2023). Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Energy Data Explorer, from
  7. Vendries, J., Sauer, B., Hawkins, T. R., Allaway, D., Canepa, P., Rivin, J., and Mistry, M. (2020). The Significance of Environmental Attributes As Indicators of the Life Cycle Environmental Impacts of Packaging and Food Service Ware, Environmental Science & Technology, Vol. 54, No. 9, 5356–5364. doi:10.1021/acs.est.9b07910.
  8. Wang, J., and Azam, W. (2024). Natural Resource Scarcity, Fossil Fuel Energy Consumption, and Total Greenhouse Gas Emissions in Top Emitting Countries, Geoscience Frontiers, Vol. 15, No. 2, 101757. doi:10.1016/j.gsf.2023.101757.
  9. Lu, C., and Wang, K. (2023). Natural Resource Conservation Outpaces and Climate Change: Roles of Reforestation, Mineral Extraction, and Natural Resources Depletion, Resources Policy, Vol. 86, 104159. doi:10.1016/j.resourpol.2023.104159.
  10. Idroes, G. M., Hardi, I., Noviandy, T. R., Sasmita, N. R., Hilal, I. S., Kusumo, F., and Idroes, R. (2023). A Deep Dive into Indonesia’s CO2 Emissions: The Role of Energy Consumption, Economic Growth and Natural Disasters, Ekonomikalia Journal of Economics, Vol. 1, No. 2, 69–81. doi:10.60084/eje.v1i2.115.
  11. Nepstad, D. C., Stickler, C., and De Almeida, O. T. (2006). Globalization of the Amazon Soy and Beef Industries: Opportunities for Conservation, Conservation Biology, Vol. 20, No. 6, 1595–1603. doi:10.1111/j.1523-1739.2006.00510.x.
  12. Hardi, I., Idroes, G. M., Zulham, T., Suriani, S., and Saputra, J. (2023). Economic Growth, Agriculture, Capital Formation and Greenhouse Gas Emissions in Indonesia: FMOLS, DOLS and CCR Applications, Ekonomikalia Journal of Economics, Vol. 1, No. 2, 82–91. doi:10.60084/eje.v1i2.109.
  13. Gephart, J. A., Deutsch, L., Pace, M. L., Troell, M., and Seekell, D. A. (2017). Shocks to Fish Production: Identification, Trends, and Consequences, Global Environmental Change, Vol. 42, 24–32. doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2016.11.003.
  14. Cardoso, P., Amponsah-Mensah, K., Barreiros, J. P., Bouhuys, J., Cheung, H., Davies, A., Kumschick, S., Longhorn, S. J., Martínez-Muñoz, C. A., Morcatty, T. Q., Peters, G., Ripple, W. J., Rivera-Téllez, E., Stringham, O. C., Toomes, A., Tricorache, P., and Fukushima, C. S. (2021). Scientists’ Warning to Humanity on Illegal or Unsustainable Wildlife Trade, Biological Conservation, Vol. 263, 109341. doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2021.109341.
  15. Ribeiro, J., Bingre, P., Strubbe, D., Santana, J., Capinha, C., Araújo, M. B., and Reino, L. (2022). Exploring the Effects of Geopolitical Shifts on Global Wildlife Trade, BioScience, Vol. 72, No. 6, 560–572. doi:10.1093/biosci/biac015.
  16. Li, Y., Blackburn, T. M., Luo, Z., Song, T., Watters, F., Li, W., Deng, T., Luo, Z., Li, Y., Du, J., Niu, M., Zhang, J., Zhang, J., Yang, J., and Wang, S. (2023). Quantifying Global Colonization Pressures of Alien Vertebrates from Wildlife Trade, Nature Communications, Vol. 14, No. 1, 7914. doi:10.1038/s41467-023-43754-6.
  17. Gordon-Ashworth, F. (2024). International Commodity Control: A Contemporary History and Appraisal, Taylor & Francis.
  18. Wong, K., and Yip, C. K. (1999). Industrialization, Economic Growth, and International Trade, Review of International Economics, Vol. 7, No. 3, 522–540. doi:10.1111/1467-9396.00179.
  19. Hardi, I., Ray, S., Attari, M. U. Q., Ali, N., and Idroes, G. M. (2024). Innovation and Economic Growth in the Top Five Southeast Asian Economies: A Decomposition Analysis, Ekonomikalia Journal of Economics, Vol. 2, No. 1, 1–14. doi:10.60084/eje.v2i1.145.
  20. Less, C. T., and McMillan, S. (2005). Achieving the Successful Transfer of Environmentally Sound Technologies: Trade-Related Aspects. OECD Trade and Environment Working Papers, No. 2005/02
  21. OECD. (2023). Trade and the Environment, from
  22. Hák, T., Janoušková, S., and Moldan, B. (2016). Sustainable Development Goals: A Need for Relevant Indicators, Ecological Indicators, Vol. 60, 565–573. doi:10.1016/j.ecolind.2015.08.003.
  23. World Trade Organization. (2022). World Trade Report 2022: Climate Change and International Trade, from
  24. Beckerman, W. (1992). Economic Growth and the Environment: Whose Growth? Whose Environment?, World Development, Vol. 20, No. 4, 481–496. doi:10.1016/0305-750X(92)90038-W.
  25. Kaika, D., and Zervas, E. (2013). The Environmental Kuznets Curve (EKC) Theory—Part A: Concept, Causes and the CO2 Emissions Case, Energy Policy, Vol. 62, 1392–1402. doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2013.07.131.
  26. Cole, M. A. (2004). Economic Growth and Water Use, Applied Economics Letters, Vol. 11, No. 1, 1–4. doi:10.1080/1350485042000187435.
  27. Usenata, N. (2018). Environmental Kuznets Curve (EKC): A Review of Theoretical and Empirical Literature.
  28. Sharif, T., Uddin, M. M. M., and Alexiou, C. (2022). Testing the Moderating Role of Trade Openness on the Environmental Kuznets Curve Hypothesis: A Novel Approach, Annals of Operations Research. doi:10.1007/s10479-021-04501-6.
  29. Leimgruber, M., and Schmelzer, M. (Eds.). (2017). The OECD and the International Political Economy Since 1948, Springer International Publishing, Cham. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-60243-1.
  30. OECD.Stat. (2023). Greenhouse gas emissions, from
  31. Kruse, T., Dechezleprêtre, A., Saffar, R., and Robert, L. (2022). Measuring Environmental Policy Stringency in OECD Countries: An Update of the OECD Composite EPS Indicator, OECD Economics Department Working Papers No. 1703. doi:10.1787/90ab82e8-en.
  32. OECD. (2023). Our Global Reach, from
  33. OECD. (1999). The Future of the Global Economy: Towards a Long Boom?, Organization for Economic.
  34. Xu, Z., Li, Y., Chau, S. N., Dietz, T., Li, C., Wan, L., Zhang, J., Zhang, L., Li, Y., Chung, M. G., and Liu, J. (2020). Impacts of International Trade on Global Sustainable Development, Nature Sustainability, Vol. 3, No. 11, 964–971. doi:10.1038/s41893-020-0572-z.
  35. Feng, X., Zhao, Y., and Yan, R. (2024). Does Carbon Emission Trading Policy Has Emission Reduction Effect?—An Empirical Study Based on Quasi-Natural Experiment Method, Journal of Environmental Management, Vol. 351, 119791. doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2023.119791.
  36. Nguyễn, H. V., and Phan, T. T. (2023). Impact of Economic Growth, International Trade, and FDI on Sustainable Development in Developing Countries, Environment, Development and Sustainability. doi:10.1007/s10668-023-04060-9.
  37. Jayaraman, K., Jayashree, S., and Dorasamy, M. (2023). The Effects of Green Innovations in Organizations: Influence of Stakeholders, Sustainability, Vol. 15, No. 2, 1133. doi:10.3390/su15021133.
  38. Can, M., Ahmed, Z., Mercan, M., and Kalugina, O. A. (2021). The Role of Trading Environment-Friendly Goods in Environmental Sustainability: Does Green Openness Matter for OECD Countries?, Journal of Environmental Management, Vol. 295, 113038. doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2021.113038.
  39. Sauvage, J. (2014). The stringency of environmental regulations and trade in environmental goods. doi: 10.1787/5jxrjn7xsnmq-en.
  40. Nekmahmud, M., Ramkissoon, H., and Fekete-Farkas, M. (2022). Green Purchase and Sustainable Consumption: A Comparative Study between European and Non-European Tourists, Tourism Management Perspectives, Vol. 43, 100980. doi:10.1016/j.tmp.2022.100980.
  41. Lv, Z., and Xu, T. (2019). Trade Openness, Urbanization and CO 2 Emissions: Dynamic Panel Data Analysis of Middle-Income Countries, The Journal of International Trade & Economic Development, Vol. 28, No. 3, 317–330. doi:10.1080/09638199.2018.1534878.
  42. Jena, P. R. (2018). Does Trade Liberalization Create More Pollution? Evidence from a Panel Regression Analysis across the States of India, Environmental Economics and Policy Studies, Vol. 20, No. 4, 861–877. doi:10.1007/s10018-018-0217-x.
  43. Ansari, M. A., and Khan, N. A. (2021). Decomposing the Trade-Environment Nexus for High Income, Upper and Lower Middle Income Countries: What Do the Composition, Scale, and Technique Effect Indicate?, Ecological Indicators, Vol. 121, 107122. doi:10.1016/j.ecolind.2020.107122.
  44. Shahbaz, M., Gozgor, G., Adom, P. K., and Hammoudeh, S. (2019). The Technical Decomposition of Carbon Emissions and the Concerns about FDI and Trade Openness Effects in the United States, International Economics, Vol. 159, 56–73. doi:10.1016/j.inteco.2019.05.001.
  45. Liobikienė, G., and Butkus, M. (2019). Scale, Composition, and Technique Effects through Which the Economic Growth, Foreign Direct Investment, Urbanization, and Trade Affect Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Renewable Energy, Vol. 132, 1310–1322. doi:10.1016/j.renene.2018.09.032.
  46. Idroes, G. M., Syahnur, S., Majid, M. S. A., Idroes, R., Kusumo, F., and Hardi, I. (2023). Unveiling the Carbon Footprint: Biomass vs. Geothermal Energy in Indonesia, Ekonomikalia Journal of Economics, Vol. 1, No. 1, 10–18. doi:10.60084/eje.v1i1.47.
  47. Khan, A., Safdar, S., and Nadeem, H. (2023). Decomposing the Effect of Trade on Environment: A Case Study of Pakistan, Environmental Science and Pollution Research, Vol. 30, No. 2, 3817–3834. doi:10.1007/s11356-022-21705-w.
  48. Doğan, B., Saboori, B., and Can, M. (2019). Does Economic Complexity Matter for Environmental Degradation? An Empirical Analysis for Different Stages of Development, Environmental Science and Pollution Research, Vol. 26, No. 31, 31900–31912. doi:10.1007/s11356-019-06333-1.
  49. Can, M., and Gozgor, G. (2017). The Impact of Economic Complexity on Carbon Emissions: Evidence from France, Environmental Science and Pollution Research, Vol. 24, No. 19, 16364–16370. doi:10.1007/s11356-017-9219-7.
  50. Zhang, Y. (2012). Scale, Technique and Composition Effects in Trade-Related Carbon Emissions in China, Environmental and Resource Economics, Vol. 51, No. 3, 371–389. doi:10.1007/s10640-011-9503-9.
  51. Cole, M. A., and Elliott, R. J. R. (2003). Determining the Trade–Environment Composition Effect: The Role of Capital, Labor and Environmental Regulations, Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Vol. 46, No. 3, 363–383. doi:10.1016/S0095-0696(03)00021-4.
  52. Ling, C. H., Ahmed, K., Binti Muhamad, R., and Shahbaz, M. (2015). Decomposing the Trade-Environment Nexus for Malaysia: What Do the Technique, Scale, Composition, and Comparative Advantage Effect Indicate?, Environmental Science and Pollution Research, Vol. 22, No. 24, 20131–20142. doi:10.1007/s11356-015-5217-9.
  53. Tsurumi, T., and Managi, S. (2010). Decomposition of the Environmental Kuznets Curve: Scale, Technique, and Composition Effects, Environmental Economics and Policy Studies, Vol. 11, Nos. 1–4, 19–36. doi:10.1007/s10018-009-0159-4.
  54. Cole, M. A. (2006). Does Trade Liberalization Increase National Energy Use?, Economics Letters, Vol. 92, No. 1, 108–112. doi:10.1016/j.econlet.2006.01.018.
  55. Apergis, N., Can, M., Gozgor, G., and Lau, C. K. M. (2018). Effects of Export Concentration on CO2 Emissions in Developed Countries: An Empirical Analysis, Environmental Science and Pollution Research, Vol. 25, No. 14, 14106–14116. doi:10.1007/s11356-018-1634-x.
  56. Can, M., Dogan, B., and Saboori, B. (2020). Does Trade Matter for Environmental Degradation in Developing Countries? New Evidence in the Context of Export Product Diversification, Environmental Science and Pollution Research, Vol. 27, No. 13, 14702–14710. doi:10.1007/s11356-020-08000-2.
  57. Grossman, G., and Krueger, A. (1991). Environmental Impacts of a North American Free Trade AgreementCambridge, MA. doi:10.3386/w3914.
  58. Ben Jebli, M., Ben Youssef, S., and Ozturk, I. (2016). Testing Environmental Kuznets Curve Hypothesis: The Role of Renewable and Non-renewable Energy Consumption and Trade in OECD Countries, Ecological Indicators, Vol. 60, 824–831. doi:10.1016/j.ecolind.2015.08.031.
  59. Rasoulinezhad, E., and Saboori, B. (2018). Panel Estimation for Renewable and Non-renewable Energy Consumption, Economic Growth, CO2 Emissions, the Composite Trade Intensity, and Financial Openness of the Commonwealth of Independent States, Environmental Science and Pollution Research, Vol. 25, No. 18, 17354–17370. doi:10.1007/s11356-018-1827-3.
  60. Radmehr, R., Henneberry, S. R., and Shayanmehr, S. (2021). Renewable Energy Consumption, CO2 Emissions, and Economic Growth Nexus: A Simultaneity Spatial Modeling Analysis of EU Countries, Structural Change and Economic Dynamics, Vol. 57, 13–27. doi:10.1016/j.strueco.2021.01.006.
  61. Zhang, M., Zhang, S., Lee, C.-C., and Zhou, D. (2021). Effects of Trade Openness on Renewable Energy Consumption in OECD Countries: New Insights from Panel Smooth Transition Regression Modelling, Energy Economics, Vol. 104, 105649. doi:10.1016/j.eneco.2021.105649.
  62. Al-Mulali, U., Ozturk, I., and Lean, H. H. (2015). The Influence of Economic Growth, Urbanization, Trade Openness, Financial Development, and Renewable Energy on Pollution in Europe, Natural Hazards, Vol. 79, No. 1, 621–644. doi:10.1007/s11069-015-1865-9.
  63. Can, M., Jebli, M. Ben, and Brusselaers, J. (2021). Exploring the Impact of Trading Green Technology Products on the Environment: Introducing the Green Openness Index, SSRN Electronic Journal. doi:10.2139/ssrn.3804046.
  64. Lee, C., Olasehinde‐Williams, G., and Gyamfi, B. A. (2023). The Synergistic Effect of Green Trade and Economic Complexity on Sustainable Environment: A New Perspective on the Economic and Ecological Components of Sustainable Development, Sustainable Development, Vol. 31, No. 2, 976–989. doi:10.1002/sd.2433.
  65. Alvi, S., Ahmad, I., and Rehman, A. (2023). Trade of Environmental versus Non-Environmental Goods and Carbon Emissions in High and Middle–Income Countries, Environmental Science and Pollution Research, Vol. 30, No. 24, 65283–65295. doi:10.1007/s11356-023-26972-9.
  66. Rosa, E. A., and Dietz, T. (2012). Human Drivers of National Greenhouse-Gas Emissions, Nature Climate Change, Vol. 2, No. 8, 581–586. doi:10.1038/nclimate1506.
  67. Gillingham, K., and Stock, J. H. (2018). The Cost of Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Journal of Economic Perspectives, Vol. 32, No. 4, 53–72. doi:10.1257/jep.32.4.53.
  68. Pesaran, M. H. (2004). General Diagnostic Tests for Cross Section Dependence in Panels, SSRN Electronic Journal. doi:10.2139/ssrn.572504.
  69. Pesaran, M. H., Ullah, A., and Yamagata, T. (2008). A Bias-Adjusted LM Test of Error Cross-Section Independence, The Econometrics Journal, Vol. 11, No. 1, 105–127. doi:10.1111/j.1368-423X.2007.00227.x.
  70. Pesaran, M. H. (2007). A Simple Panel Unit Root Test in the Presence of Cross-Section Dependence, Journal of Applied Econometrics, Vol. 22, No. 2, 265–312. doi:10.1002/jae.951.
  71. Westerlund, J. (2008). Panel Cointegration Tests of the Fisher Effect, Journal of Applied Econometrics, Vol. 23, No. 2, 193–233. doi:10.1002/jae.967.
  72. Breusch, T. S., and Pagan, A. R. (1980). The Lagrange Multiplier Test and Its Applications to Model Specification in Econometrics, The Review of Economic Studies, Vol. 47, No. 1, 239. doi:10.2307/2297111.
  73. Kao, C. (1999). Spurious Regression and Residual-Based Tests for Cointegration in Panel Data, Journal of Econometrics, Vol. 90, No. 1, 1–44. doi:10.1016/S0304-4076(98)00023-2.
  74. Pedroni, P. (2004). Panel Cointegration: Asymptotic and Finite Sample Properties of Pooled Time Series Tests with an Application to the PPP Hypothesis, Econometric Theory, Vol. 20, No. 03. doi:10.1017/S0266466604203073.
  75. Pedroni, P. (2001). Fully Modified OLS for Heterogeneous Cointegrated Panels, 93–130. doi:10.1016/S0731-9053(00)15004-2.
  76. Phillips, P. C. B., and Hansen, B. E. (1990). Statistical Inference in Instrumental Variables Regression with I(1) Processes, The Review of Economic Studies, Vol. 57, No. 1, 99. doi:10.2307/2297545.
  77. Stock, J. H., and Watson, M. W. (1993). A Simple Estimator of Cointegrating Vectors in Higher Order Integrated Systems, Econometrica, Vol. 61, No. 4, 783. doi:10.2307/2951763.
  78. Yahyaoui, I., and Bouchoucha, N. (2021). The Long-Run Relationship between ODA, Growth and Governance: An Application of FMOLS and DOLS Approaches, African Development Review, Vol. 33, No. 1, 38–54. doi:10.1111/1467-8268.12489.
  79. Dumitrescu, E.-I., and Hurlin, C. (2012). Testing for Granger non-causality in heterogeneous panels, Economic Modelling, Vol. 29, No. 4, 1450–1460. doi:10.1016/j.econmod.2012.02.014.
  80. Pesaran, M. H., and Yamagata, T. (2008). Testing Slope Homogeneity in Large Panels, Journal of Econometrics, Vol. 142, No. 1, 50–93. doi:10.1016/j.jeconom.2007.05.010.
  81. Wang, Y., Sun, X., and Guo, X. (2019). Environmental Regulation and Green Productivity Growth: Empirical Evidence on the Porter Hypothesis from OECD Industrial Sectors, Energy Policy, Vol. 132, 611–619. doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2019.06.016.
  82. Albrizio, S., Kozluk, T., and Zipperer, V. (2017). Environmental Policies and Productivity Growth: Evidence across Industries and Firms, Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Vol. 81, 209–226. doi:10.1016/j.jeem.2016.06.002.
  83. Copeland, B. R. (2008). The Pollution Haven Hypothesis, Handbook on Trade and the Environment, Edward Elgar Publishing. doi:10.4337/9781848446045.00012.
  84. Gill, F. L., Viswanathan, K. K., and Karim, M. Z. A. (2018). The Critical Review of the Pollution Haven Hypothesis, International Journal of Energy Economics and Policy, Vol. 8, No. 1, 167–174.




How to Cite

van Ledden, A., Can, M. and Brusselaers, J. (2024) “Toward a Greener Future: Investigating the Environmental Quality of Non-Green Trading in OECD Countries”, Ekonomikalia Journal of Economics, 2(1), pp. 15–28. doi: 10.60084/eje.v2i1.149.