---

Journal of Environmental Accounting and Management 14(2) (2026) 193--209 | DOI:10.5890/JEAM.2026.06.005

Zia Ur Rahman$^{1}$, Saeed Ullah$^{2}$, Wajid Khan$^{3}$, Muhammad Kamran$^{4}$, Tahira Awan$^{5}$, Ikram Ullah$^{6}$, Hafsah Batool$^{7}$

$^{1}$ Department of Economics, Ghazi University, Dera Ghazi Khan, Pakistan

$^{2}$ University of Education Lahore, Vehari Campus, Pakistan

$^{3}$ Department of Business Management, University of Baltistan, Skardu, Pakistan

$^{4}$ University of Loralai, Balochistan, Pakistan

$^{5}$ Faculty of Management Sciences, International Islamic University, Islamabad, Pakistan

$^{6}$ Department of Economics, University of Malakand, Pakistan

$^{7}$ Department of Economics, Lahore College for Women, Pakistan

Download Full Text PDF

 

Abstract

Large-scale industrialization, population growth, and economic development have led to rising energy consumption and environmental degradation, consistently threatening environmental sustainability. This study examines the effects of natural resource consumption, environmental regulations, energy efficiency and conservation, sustainable economic development, institutional quality, and geopolitical risk on environmental quality. A panel dataset covering China, Pakistan, and India (representing the Global South) from 1990 to 2021 was compiled using data from the World Development Indicators, Global Footprint Network, and World Governance Indicators. To analyze the determinants of environmental quality, the study employs advanced econometric techniques, including Bootstrap OLS, Quantile Regression, and the Dynamic Simulated Autoregressive Distributed Lagged model (DS-ARDL). The results reveal that natural resource consumption significantly deteriorates the environmental quality, reducing it by 0.049\%. In contrast, environmental regulations, energy efficiency and conservation, sustainable economic development, and institutional quality improve environmental quality by 0.107\%, 0.196\%, 0.585\%, and 1.450\% respectively. Moreover, environmental regulation, energy efficiency and conservation, and strong institutions not only enhance environmental quality but also reduce greenhouse gas emissions, thereby supporting sustainable economic development. The analysis also highlights that interaction effects amplify the impact of some variables on environmental quality. The study underscores the critical role of policy interventions in improving environmental outcomes, and relevant policy implications are discussed.

References

1. [1]	Knox, J., Hess, T., Daccache, A., and Wheeler, T. (2012), Climate change impacts on crop productivity in Africa and South Asia, Environmental Research Letters, 7(3), 034032.

2. [2]	Achuo, E., Miamo, C., and Nchofoung, T. (2022), Energy consumption and environmental sustainability: what lessons for posterity?, Energy Reports. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egyr.2022.09.033.

3. [3]	Lopes, A.S. and Ostranský, J. (2022), A robust time-cost-quality-energy-environment trade-off with resource-constrained in project management: a case study for a bridge construction project, Journal of Industrial and Management Optimization, 18(1), 375. https://doi.org/10.3934/jimo.2020158.

4. [4]	Celin, S.M., Bhanot, P., and Kalsi, A. (2022), Resource management: ways to sustain the environmental gains of COVID-19 lockdown, Environment, Development and Sustainability, 24(11), 12518-12541. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s10668-022-02228-3.

5. [5]

   Saleem, H., Khan, M.B., and Mahdavian, S.M. (2022), The role of green growth, green financing, and eco-friendly technology in achieving environmental quality: evidence from selected Asian economies, Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 29(38), 57720-57739. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-022-19799-3.

6. [6]	Nosheen, M., Iqbal, J., and Khan, H.U. (2021), Analyzing the linkage among CO2 emissions, economic growth, tourism, and energy consumption in the Asian economies, Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 28(13), 16707-16719. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-020-11759-z.

7. [7]	Galvan, L.P.C., Bhatti, U.A., Campo, C.C., and Trujillo, R.A.S. (2022), The nexus between CO2 emission, economic growth, trade openness: evidences from Middle-Income Trap Countries, Frontiers in Environmental Science, 10. https://doi.org/10.3389/fenvs.2022.938776.

8. [8]	Shah, W.U.H., Zhang, X., Yasmeen, R., and Padda, I.U.H. (2023), Green transition and economic growth in G20 countries: evidence from disaggregated energy sources, Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 30(40), 92206-92223. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-023-28781-6.

9. [9]	Abid, M., Sakrafi, H., Gheraia, Z., and Abdelli, H. (2022), Does renewable energy consumption affect ecological footprints in Saudi Arabia? A bootstrap causality test, Renewable Energy, 189, 813-821. https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.renene.2022.03.043.

10. [10]	Raihan, A., Voumik, L.C., Ridwan, M., Ridzuan, A.R., Jaaffar, A.H., and Yusoff, N.Y.M. (2023), From growth to green: navigating the complexities of economic development, energy sources, health spending, and carbon emissions in Malaysia, Energy Reports, 10, 4318-4331.

11. [11]	Parry, I., Mylonas, V., and Vernon, N. (2017a), Energy policy reform in India: assessing the options, Chapter 8 of India: Selected Issues, IMF Country Report 17/55.

12. [12]

    Rani, T., Amjad, M.A., Asghar, N., and Rehman, H.U. (2022), Revisiting the environmental impact of financial development on economic growth and carbon emissions: evidence from South Asian economies, Clean Technologies and Environmental Policy, 24(9), 2957-2965. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10098-022-02360-8.

13. [13]	Parry, I., Mylonas, V., and Vernon, N. (2017b), Reforming energy policy in India: assessing the options, IMF Working Paper WP/17/103.

14. [14]	Osman, A.I., Chen, L., Yang, M., Msigwa, G., Farghali, M., Fawzy, S., Rooney, D.W., and Yap, P. (2022), Cost, environmental impact, and resilience of renewable energy under a changing climate: a review, Environmental Chemistry Letters, 21(2), 741-764. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10311-022-01532-8.

15. [15]	Tang, D., Zhong, H., Zhang, J., Dai, Y., and Boamah, V. (2022), The effect of green finance on the ecological and environmental quality of the Yangtze River Economic Belt, International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 19(19), 12492. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph191912492.

16. [16]	Yang, Z., Tian, J., Su, W., Wu, J., Liu, J., Liu, W., and Guo, R. (2022), Analysis of ecological environmental quality change in the Yellow River Basin using the remote-sensing-based ecological index, Sustainability, 14(17), 10726. https://doi.org/10.3390/su141710726.

17. [17]	He, J. and Wang, H. (2012), Economic structure, development policy and environmental quality: an empirical analysis of environmental Kuznets curves with Chinese municipal data, Ecological Economics, 76, 49-59.

18. [18]	Ma, A. and He, Y. (2021), Understanding the impact of land resource misallocation on carbon emissions in China, Land, 10, 1188.

19. [19]	Zhang, Z., Xu, H., Shan, S., Liu, Q., and Lu, Y. (2022), Whether the agricultural insurance policy achieves green income growth—evidence from the implementation of China's total cost insurance pilot program, International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 19, 852.

20. [20]	Chien, F., Hsu, C.C., Ozturk, I., Sharif, A., and Sadiq, M. (2022), The role of renewable energy and urbanization towards greenhouse gas emission in top Asian countries: evidence from advance panel estimations, Renewable Energy, 186, 207-216.

21. [21]	Grossman, G. and Krueger, A. (1991), Environmental Impacts of a North American Free Trade Agreement, National Bureau of Economic Research Working Paper No. 3914, National Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge, MA, USA.

22. [22]	Caravaggio, N. (2020), Economic growth and the forest development path: a theoretical re-assessment of the environmental Kuznets curve for deforestation, Forest Policy and Economics, 119, 102282.

23. [23]	Saqib, M. and Benhmad, F. (2021), Does ecological footprint matter for the shape of the environmental Kuznets curve? Evidence from European countries, Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 28, 13634-13648.

24. [24]

    Jiang, Q., Rahman, Z.U., Zhang, X., Guo, Z., and Xie, Q. (2022), An assessment of the impact of natural resources, energy, institutional quality, and financial development on CO2 emissions: evidence from the B\&R nations, Resources Policy, 76, 102716. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resourpol.2022.102716.

25. [25]	Hassan, S.T., Xia, E., and Lee, C. (2020), Mitigation pathways impact of climate change and improving sustainable development: the roles of natural resources, income, and CO2 emission, Energy $\&$ Environment, 32(2), 338-363. https://doi.org/10.1177/0958305x20932550.

26. [26]	Guo, J. and Zhao, X. (2025), Exploring the nexus between technological innovation, environmental regulation, human capital, and low-carbon economy, Journal of Comprehensive Business Administration Research. https://doi.org/ 10.47852/bonviewJCBAR52024767.

27. [27]	Pesaran, M.H. (2021), Testing weak cross-sectional dependence in large panels, SSRN Electron. J. https://doi.org/ 10.2139/ssrn.2050312.

28. [28]	Jordan, S. and Philips, A.Q. (2018), Cointegration testing and dynamic simulations of autoregressive distributed lag models, The Stata Journal: Promoting Communications on Statistics and Stata, 18, 902-923. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 1536867X1801800409.

29. [29]	Ulucak, R. (2021), Renewable energy, technological innovation and the environment: a novel dynamic auto-regressive green development, Green Development, 4, 100183. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.igd.2024.100183.

30. [30]	Ulanov, V.L. (2024), The need for the green economy factors in assessing the development and growth of Russian raw materials companies, Journal of Comprehensive Business Administration Research, 1(1), 19-26. https://doi.org/ 10.47852/bonviewJCBAR42022237.