Material productivity and material intensity as drivers of environmental sustainability in G-7 economies

Figures & data

Table 1. Definition of variables.

Variables	Code	Unit	Source
Carbon dioxide emissions	CO₂	Metric tonnes	https://ourworldindata.org/co2-emissions
Greenhouse gas emissions	GHG	Metric tonnes	https://ourworldindata.org/co2-emissions
Growth rate of GDP	GDP	Percent	https://data.worldbank.org/
Material productivity (GDP/DMC)	MP	Rate	https://www.resourcepanel.org/data-resources
Material footprint productivity (GDP/MF)	MF	Rate	https://www.resourcepanel.org/data-resources
Material Intensity (DMC/GDP)	MI	Rate	https://www.resourcepanel.org/data-resources

Note. DMC states domestic material consumption while MF states material footprint. Growth rate of GDP is calculated based on constant 2015 prices. Also, the environmental indicators are transformed into their natural logarithms.

Table 2. Statistical description of data.

	LNCO2	LNGHG	GDP	GDP^2	MP	MF	MI
Mean	20.515	20.720	2.315	9.867	1.971	1.428	0.647
Median	20.167	20.515	2.336	6.034	1.914	1.377	0.522
Maximum	22.538	22.676	8.413	7.787	4.536	2.668	1.817
Minimum	19.507	19.670	−5.693	2.07	.551	0.711	0.220
Std. Dev.	0.853	0.822	2.125	11.101	.881	0.417	0.366
Skewness	1.278	1.352	−.486	2.0568	.463	0.615	1.418
Kurtosis	3.508	3.790	4.417	8.4410	2.782	2.911	4.323
Jarque-Bera	99.075	115.790	43.11	678.51	13.21	22.24	142.80
Probability	0.000	0.000	.000	.000	.000	0.000	0.000
Observations	350	350	350	350	350	350	350

Note. The Mean VIF value was determined as 4.96. This result shows that there is no multicollinearity problem.

Figure 1. Box plot for variables.

Figure 2. Scatterplot matrix for variables.

Table 3. Correlation analysis results.

	LNCO2	LNGHG	GDP	GDP2	MP	MF	MI
LNCO2	1.000
	—–
LNGHG	0.99***	1.000
	(0.00)	—–
GDP	0.07	0.09*	1.000
	(0.22)	(0.08)	—–
GDP^2	0.05	0.07	.69***	1.000
	(0.37)	(0.21)	(.00)	—–
MP	−0.20***	−0.30***	−.33***	−.33***	1.000
	(0.00)	(0.00)	(.00)	(.00)	—–
MF	−0.09*	−0.15***	−.34***	−.36***	.90***	1.000
	(0.08)	(0.00)	(.00)	(.00)	(.00)	—–
MI	0.00	0.12**	.25***	.25***	−.86***	−0.75***	1.000
	(0.93)	(0.02)	(.00)	(.00)	(.00)	(0.00)	—–

Note. Values in parentheses represent probability values (p). *** p<0.01, ** p<0.05, * p<0.1.

Table 4. Cross-section dependence results.

	ln$C{O}_2$	lnGHG	GDP	GDP2	MP	MI	MF
Breusch-Pagan LM	490.18*** (0.000)	495.19*** (0.000)	366.92*** (.000)	293.98*** (.000)	845.28*** (.000)	904.21*** (0.000)	854.58*** (0.000)
Pesaran scaled LM	71.31*** (0.000)	72.08*** (0.000)	52.297*** (.000)	41.04*** (.000)	126.10*** (.000)	135.20*** (0.000)	127.54*** (0.000)
Bias-corrected scaled LM	71.24*** (0.000)	72.01*** (0.000)	52.225*** (.000)	4.97*** (.000)	126.03*** (.000)	135.13*** (0.000)	127.47*** (0.000)
Pesaran CD	2.68*** (0.007)	3.19*** (0.001)	18.812*** (.000)	16.40*** (.000)	28.91*** (.000)	30.03*** (0.000)	29.16*** (0.000)

Note. Values in parentheses represent probability values (p). *** p<0.01, ** p<0.05, * p<0.1.

Table 5. Pesaran and Yamagata (2008) homogeneity test results.

	Delta	p-value
Panel A. Model 1
	22.644***	0.00
adj.	24.417***	0.00
Panel B. Model 2
	Delta	p-value
	23.098***	0.00
adj.	24.907***	0.00

Note. *** p<0.01.

Table 6. Pesaran (2007) panel CADF unit root test results.

Variable	t-bar	cv10	cv5	cv1	Z[t-bar]	P-value
lnCO2	−0.906	−2.21	−2.33	−2.55	2.459	0.993
lnGHG	−0.843	−2.21	−2.33	−2.55	2.638	0.996
GDP	−4.245***	−2.21	−2.33	−2.55	−6.939	0.000
GDP^2	−4.644***	−2.21	−2.33	−2.55	−8.061	0.000
MP	−1.642	−2.21	−2.33	−2.55	0.389	0.651
MF	−2.123	−2.21	−2.33	−2.55	−0.966	0.167
MI	−2.072	−2.21	−2.33	−2.55	−0.823	0.205
∆lnCO2	−4.878***	−2.21	−2.33	−2.55	−8.721	0.000
∆lnGHG	−4.834***	−2.21	−2.33	−2.55	−8.596	0.000
∆MP	−3.995***	−2.21	−2.33	−2.55	−6.234	0.000
∆MF	−4.733***	−2.21	−2.33	−2.55	−8.311	0.000
∆MI	−4.642***	−2.21	−2.33	−2.55	−8.055	0.000

Note. *** p<0.01. cv states the critical values. ∆ indicates the first difference of the variable.

Table 7. Cross-section dependence results for Model a and Model B.

Test	Statistic	p-value
Panel A. Model 1
LM	137.8***	0.000
LM adj	64.41***	0.000
LM CD	8.416***	0.000
Swamy	Chi2(30)=60198.03***	Prob>chi2= 0.000
Panel B. Model 2
LM	158.8***	0.000
LM adj	76.09***	0.000
LM CD	10.16***	0.000
Swamy	Chi2(120)=85702.09*	Prob>chi2= 0.000

Note. *** p<0.01.

Table 8. Westerlund (2008) panel cointegration test results.

	Test ist.	P- Value		Test ist.	P- Value
Panel A: Model 1 with constant			Panel B: Model 1 with constant and trend
DHg	−1.088	0.138	DHg	−1.377	0.084*
DHp	−1.379	0.040**	DHp	−1.822	0.034*
Panel C: Model 2 with constant			Panel D: Model 2 with constant and trend
DHg	−1.141	0.127	DHg	−1.559	0.060*
DHp	−1.752	0.040**	DHp	−1.827	0.034**

Note. *** p<0.01, ** p<0.05, * p<0.1.

Table 9. Long-run coefficients results (DOLSMG).

Variables	Beta	t-stat
Panel A: Model 1
GDP	0.022**	2.787
GDP^2	−0.005**	−2.611
MP	−0.087**	−8.424
MF	−0.248**	−2.025
MI	−0.403**	−7.593
Panel B: Model 2
GDP	0.018**	2.131
GDP^2	−0.005**	−2.576
MP	−0.042**	−6.808
MF	−0.315**	−3.036
MI	−0.396**	−10.09

Note. ** p<0.05.

Figure 3. DOLSMG schematic results for Model 1.

Figure 4. DOLSMG schematic results for Model 2.

Table 10. Country-specific long run coefficients results.

Variables	Beta	t-stat	Variables	Beta	t-stat	Variables	Beta	t-stat
Canada for Model 1			France for Model 1			Germany for Model 1
GDP	0.01	1.56	GDP	−0.005	−0.26	GDP	0.11*	1.82
GDP^2	0.00	0.22	GDP^2	0.007	0.24	GDP^2	−0.02**	−2.34
MP	−0.23***	−7.48	MP	−0.76***	−14.53	MP	0.21	0.71
MF	−0.14	−1.39	MF	0.23***	4.77	MF	−0.83**	−2.38
MI	−0.26***	−5.43	MI	−2.48***	−15.21	MI	−1.04	−0.51
Italy for Model 1			Japan for Model 1			UK for Model 1
GDP	0.022*	1.97	GDP	0.002	0.07	GDP	−0.014	−0.41
GDP^2	−0.001	−0.97	GDP^2	−0.007	−1.13	GDP^2	0.002	0.38
MP	0.00	−0.11	MP	0.79***	5.04	MP	−0.31*	−1.99
MF	−0.18*	−2.00	MF	−0.73***	−2.94	MF	0.08	0.19
MI	0.94***	7.36	MI	1.77	1.56	MI	−1.14*	−2.05
USA for Model 1			Canada for Model 2			France for Model 2
GDP	0.029***	2.66	GDP	0.02***	1.80	GDP	−0.007	−0.48
GDP^2	−0.004***	−3.42	GDP^2	0.00	0.12	GDP^2	0.001	−0.52
MP	−0.30***	−3.65	MP	−0.16*	−4.03	MP	−0.59*	−16.06
MF	−0.17	−1.54	MF	−0.19	−1.46	MF	0.16*	4.67
MI	−0.60***	−5.91	MI	−0.29*	−4.61	MI	−2.29*	−19.84
Germany for Model 2			Italy for Model 2			Japan for Model 2
GDP	0.11*	1.77	GDP	0.011	0.84	GDP	−0.008	−0.32
GDP^2	−0.02*	−2.27	GDP^2	−0.001	−0.68	GDP^2	−0.005	−0.94
MP	0.19	0.65	MP	0.07	1.48	MP	0.81***	5.80
MF	−0.81**	−2.26	MF	−0.31***	−3.04	MF	−0.92***	−4.21
MI	−1.09	−0.52	MI	0.97*	6.67	MI	1.85*	1.85
UK for Model 2			USA for Model 2
GDP	−0.02	−0.55	GDP	0.03***	2.62
GDP^2	0.003	0.45	GDP^2	−0.004***	−3.21
MP	−0.34**	−2.46	MP	−0.26***	−3.12
MF	0.07	0.19	MF	−0.20*	−1.77
MI	−1.12**	−2.22	MI	−0.81***	−8.02

Note. *** p<0.01, ** p<0.05, * p<0.1.

Table 11. Dumitrescu and Hurlin (2012) panel causality test results.

	k= 1		k=2
Null Hypothesis	Zbar-Stat.	Prob.	Zbar-Stat.	Prob.
GDP^2≠> ∆MP	2.223	0.026**	1.640	0.101
∆MI≠> GDP^2	3.201	0.001***	3.304	0.001***
GDP^2≠> ∆MI	4.625	0.000***	7.284	0.000***
∆MP ≠> ∆MF	0.204	0.839	2.514	0.012**
∆MP ≠> ∆MI	3.214	0.001***	0.995	0.320
∆LNCO2≠> ∆MF	1.862	0.063*	1.733	0.083*
∆MF≠> ∆LNCO2	1.904	0.057*	2.185	0.029**
GDP≠> ∆MI	1.816	0.069*	2.412	0.016**
∆MI≠> GDP	2.913	0.004***	3.289	0.001***
∆MF≠> ∆LNGHG	1.657	0.098*	2.475	0.013*

Note. ≠> sign means that there is no homogeneously causality relationship between variables. k shows the lags length. *** p<0.01, ** p<0.05, * p<0.1. In addition, ∆ indicates the first difference of the variable.

Pesaran MH, Yamagata T. 2008. Testing slope homogeneity in large panels. Journ Econo. 142(1):50–93. doi: 10.1016/j.jeconom.2007.05.010.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Pesaran MH. 2007. A simple panel unit root test in the presence of cross‐ Section dependence. Journ Appl Econo. 22(2):265–312. doi: 10.1002/jae.951.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Westerlund J. 2008. Panel cointegration tests of the Fisher effect. J Appl Econ. 23(2):193–233. doi: 10.1002/jae.967.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Dumitrescu EI, Hurlin C. 2012. Testing for Granger non-causality in heterogeneous panels. Econ Model. 29(4):1450–1460. doi: 10.1016/j.econmod.2012.02.014.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar