Next Article in Journal
Exploring the Link between Masculine Perceptions, Violence, Social Media Influence, and Weapon Carrying and Use: A Qualitative Inquiry into Arab Adolescent Boys and Young Men in Israel
Next Article in Special Issue
Redefining Education in Sports Sciences: A Theoretical Study for Integrating Competency-Based Learning for Sustainable Employment in Spain
Previous Article in Journal
Access to Children’s Perspectives?
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Social Sciences
Volume 13
Issue 3
10.3390/socsci13030164
socsci-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Country-Level Environmental Performance: Investment, Education, and Research and Development

by
Sandra Nelly Leyva-Hernández
1,* and
Antonia Terán-Bustamante
2,*
1
Facultad de Ingeniería y Negocios San Quintín, Universidad Autónoma de Baja California, San Quintín 22930, Mexico
2
Facultad de Ciencias Económicas y Empresariales, Universidad Panamericana, Ciudad de México 03920, Mexico
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Soc. Sci. 2024, 13(3), 164; https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci13030164
Submission received: 24 January 2024 / Revised: 4 March 2024 / Accepted: 8 March 2024 / Published: 13 March 2024
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Achieving Sustainability through Educational Advances: Deep Dives into Social, Economic, and Environmental Perspectives)
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:
(1) Background: Environmental deterioration has increased in recent years and is a worldwide concern. This study aims to analyze the influence of the resources and capacities of countries on their environmental performance. (2) Methods: A cross-sectional study using secondary data was carried out quantitatively. A linear regression analysis was carried out to determine significant factors in countries’ environmental performances. (3) Results: Education innovation and investment were associated with environmental performance; however, investment in a country did not affect the country’s performance. (4) Conclusions: The scope of the proposed model was limited to the variables and countries of the secondary data analyzed, so future research can replicate this study using primary data. According to the results, the education of citizens can lead them to be more aware of their environment and pressure governments to generate positive changes for it.

1. Introduction

In recent decades, population growth, changing lifestyles, agricultural practices, urbanization, and economic activities have increased the pressures on natural systems, exacerbating climate change, loss of biodiversity, and pollution worldwide. In the Brundtland Report in 1987, visibility was given to the deterioration of the environment and the role of individual human beings and wider society within it (United Nations 2021). Since then, there has been pressure on countries to take action to mitigate environmental damage.
In 2015, the United Nations proposed Sustainable Development Goals to enhance environmental quality (United Nations 2015). However, given the current trends, it is inferred that we are far from achieving these goals. Transformation of the current conditions is necessary to promote sustainability (Leal Filho et al. 2020). To achieve these objectives, a strategic process that involves the public and private sectors, governments, companies, and citizens is necessary, as stated by Chams and García-Blandón (2019). Governments must create specific and compelling environmental policies to achieve economic growth while safeguarding environmental health. They are responsible for mitigating environmental harm, and it is imperative to ensure coherence and consistency in these policies, as Almeida et al. (2017) emphasized.
The challenges countries face require excellent capacity for innovation and education that generates inclusive growth that respects the environment (Castizo 2021). Environmental education, on the other hand, increases awareness and knowledge about environmental problems. It gives citizens and policymakers the necessary tools to make informed decisions and responsible actions to improve the environment and people’s quality of life (United States Environmental Protection Agency 2022). Innovation is a critical component of sustainable development that enables us to find new technologies and ways to solve environmental issues.
As the COVID-19 pandemic worsened, it exposed the connection between biodiversity loss and the rise in infectious diseases. This situation directly affected people’s health and access to necessary resources, making them more vulnerable (Castizo 2021). In the initial stages of the pandemic, as a result of social distancing and confinement, a positive impact was perceived. However, in the long term, repercussions for the environment have been found (Rojas 2021).
Alam et al. (2019) suggest that investment in research and development (R and D) is a critical factor in reducing environmental impacts while maintaining a company’s economic performance, according to the natural-resource-based approach (NRBV). Companies can attain sustainable competitive advantages by dedicating their resources and capabilities to eco-friendly commercial activities. As per Ezzi and Jarboui’s statement, companies can contribute to lowering carbon emissions caused by their energy consumption while producing goods and services, thus assisting their respective countries in reducing environmental harm (Ezzi and Jarboui 2016).
Ezzi and Jarboui (2016) discovered a strong and positive relationship between research and development and social performance. However, the relationship between the two variables is harmful regarding environmental performance. This indicates that companies need to pay more attention to the environment and its needs, such as the need to conserve and protect natural resources, despite innovative strategies having a solid and positive impact on financial and social performance.
Sibanda et al. (2023) posit that an individual’s human capital, measured with years of schooling and educational performance, positively impacts environmental performance. Specifically, their research reveals that education and health outcomes are essential predictors of environmental stewardship. Ismail and Hilal (2023) concur with Sibanda et al.’s (2023) findings, adding that knowledge and information on environmentally friendly behavior play a pivotal role in promoting measures that reduce environmental degradation and promote sustainable practices. Therefore, understanding the interplay between human capital and environmental performance and the role of education and knowledge is crucial for devising effective policies for environmental sustainability.
Following the above ideas, the questions guiding this research are as follows: How are countries’ environmental performances associated with investment, education, and research and development? What is the most relevant factor associated with countries’ environmental performances: investment in education or research and development?
Utilizing the resource-based theory, one can identify various factors, including resources and capabilities, that impact an organization’s environmental performance (Barney 1991). This analysis can be applied at a country level as well. This way, understanding the significant factors that will help the country mitigate environmental damage is possible. From this theoretical framework, the resources and capacities of the countries could affect their environmental performance. Therefore, this research analyzed the relationship between countries’ environmental performances and investment, education, and research and development. Some investigations have found socioeconomic and institutional factors that influence countries’ environmental performances, emphasizing controlling corruption (Gallego-Alvarez et al. 2014). According to this research, a country’s innovation and education levels are critical to achieving a positive environmental performance. Additionally, this study is founded on a well-known theoretical framework for organizational research, which forms the basis for analyzing at a country level using a systemic approach.

2. Theoretical Framework

A resource-based theoretical perspective proposes that an organization’s resources and capabilities influence its sustainable competitive advantage (Barney 1991; Penrose 2009). Barney (1991) proposes three types of resources: physical, human, and organizational. Madhani (2010) distinguishes two categories of resources and capabilities: tangible and intangible. Tangible includes financial, physical, technological, and organizational resources, while intangible comprises human capital, innovation, and reputation (Madhani 2010). In comparison, Brumagim (1994) postulates four levels of resources. The first is production resources. The second comprises administrative resources; the third includes learning resources; and the fourth is strategic-vision resources. In studies in recent years, across organizations, it has been confirmed that resources and capabilities lead to a competitive advantage such as in environmental performance (Singh et al. 2020; Rehman et al. 2021; Shibin et al. 2020; Awan et al. 2023; Sahoo et al. 2023). Therefore, the resources of organizations lead to better environmental performances.
Since the study seeks to understand countries’ environmental performances, it is necessary to use a systemic approach. From a systemic approach, a country can be seen as an organization since both are complex systems with elements that interact in a coordinated manner, as proposed by general systems theory, where the system is delimited but has a relationship with the environment (Bertoglio 1982; Ríos and Santillán 2016). In this way, a country achieves a positive environmental performance through its resources and capabilities.
Regarding the studies carried out on countries, there are different determinants of environmental performance. For example, research has shown that investment directly affects financial development and economic prosperity (Sethi et al. 2022). Higher levels of education in countries have also been found to reduce the negative environmental impact (Yin et al. 2021). Adedoyin et al. (2020) indicate that the research and development of a country influence its environmental sustainability. Following the above, the resources and capacities of a country are viewed as investments in production resources, education is seen as a learning resource, and research and development is a strategic vision resource.

2.1. Investment and Environmental Performance

The relationship between investment and performance is generally positive in terms of economic performance. However, relating investment to environmental performance is not necessarily favorable. In their longitudinal study, Adeel-Farooq et al. (2018) find that investment in the green sector deteriorates countries’ environmental performances in Asia. However, their results reveal that a country’s economic growth positively affects their environmental performance.
Another study carried out in developing countries has found that the effect of investment on environmental performance varies, and sometimes it improves environmental quality, and other times, it harms it (Hassaballa 2013). Also, Li et al. (2019) find heterogeneous results regarding investment and environmental performance, since, in developing countries, they do not find an effect of investment on environmental performance. However, in the case of developed countries, they find this effect to be positive.
Specifically, when talking about environmental investments, Li and Ramanathan (2020) have shown that they positively affect environmental performance. Their study even revealed that when regions have significant foreign investment, the effect on the environmental performance is more positive. Accordingly, the following hypothesis is postulated:
Hypothesis 1. 
Investment is related to countries’ environmental performances.

2.2. Education and Environmental Performance

The global innovation landscape is changing rapidly due to the COVID-19 pandemic, which has generated supply chain crises and the acceleration of digital transformation. Added to this are the troubled geopolitical climate, the tightening of monetary policies, and evident climate change (World Intellectual Property Organization 2022). In this context, where the world seeks to recover from the pandemic, innovation is essential to overcome challenges.
For the above, education is the appropriate vehicle to generate a truly shared responsibility and innovate within society. Improving how things are carried out through innovation can lead to achieving sustainability. According to Lee et al. (2017), innovation in education is about implementing things radically differently from the ground up. Improving the current quality of education requires a conscious, constant, and creative effort, which will produce individuals who can drive positive change in the future and work towards a sustainable world.
As income rises, it is claimed that pollution decreases due to an increased value placed on the environment by people. Therefore, improvements in regulatory institutions are needed (Dasgupta and De Cian 2016). Dasgupta et al. (2002) claim that when income increases, pollution decreases as people value the environment more and regulatory institutions become more effective. Attaining Sustainable Development Goal 4, which provides quality education and requires higher education, significantly empowers young individuals with the necessary skills to tackle imminent environmental and societal issues (United Nations 2023).
Sustainable development is the key to securing a future. Sustainable development ensures social equity, economic, and environmental performance. Therefore, the synergy between innovation and education is fundamental, implying that all agents collaborate. To learn about sustainable development, students will need to work on real-world issues with real-world solutions, where the development of potential means to achieve ecologically, economically, and socially sustainable development is achieved, and collective and solidarity values are strengthened, according to Steiner and Posch (2006) and UNESCO (2020).
According to UNESCO (2020), it is necessary to rethink what, where, and how things are learnt to develop the knowledge, skills, values, and attitudes that allow all human beings to make informed decisions and adopt both individual and collective measures on pressing issues locally, nationally, and globally contributing to a more sustainable world. In this permanent and integral learning process, innovation is a crucial factor in transforming contents into contextualized and problematized educational practices that can mobilize students, and prompting practicing academics to action–reflection–action initiatives on the challenges posed by transformations for sustainability (Jacobi et al. 2016).
Fletcher (2023) believes that education has a critical role to play in the fight against climate change. According to the research, individuals with higher levels of education are more likely to perceive climate change as a genuine threat. Dasgupta et al. (2002) suggest that the international community can contribute to reducing the environmental impact by providing funding for necessary training, policy reforms, information gathering, and public environmental education. According to the authors, there are two crucial factors in this regard. The first is to support programs that offer easily accessible public information about polluters, pollution damage, local environmental quality, and the cost of pollution reduction. The second is to aid in developing solid regulatory institutions, including cost-effective measures to reduce pollution. Thus, the following hypothesis is proposed:
Hypothesis 2. 
Education is related to countries’ environmental performances.

2.3. Research and Development, Innovation, and Environmental Performance

Research and development (R and D) and innovation are crucial in balancing financial performance and sustainable development responsibilities (Ezzi and Jarboui 2016). Ezzi and Jarboui (2016) suggest that innovative companies are better equipped to tackle environmental challenges than non-innovative ones. Research and development, as demonstrated since the early 2000s by Darroch and McNaughton (2002) as well as recent research by Lin (2017), Alam et al. (2019), and Al Halbusi et al. (2023), enables companies to innovate and adapt to environmental changes, leading to improved financial performance. According to Hsu et al. (2021), green innovation plays a significant role in the impact of environmental performance to promote new ecological strategies and public policies.
Sarpong et al. (2023), Holt et al. (2021), Xu et al. (2021), and Ganda (2019) agree that R and D is the key driver of sustainable innovations. However, this investment must be aligned with developing R and D talent and learning institutions for R and D to yield significant and lasting benefits. Without this alignment, even substantial R and D investments may not yield the advanced innovations we need (Sarpong et al. 2023).
When analyzing the environmental performance of companies, it has been proven that research and development causes a decrease in energy consumption and the intensity of carbon emissions since technologies with greater energy efficiency are promoted (Alam et al. 2019; Carrión-Flores and Innes 2010). From the systemic approach, a country can be considered an organization, and, therefore, the following hypothesis is proposed:
Hypothesis 3. 
Research and development are related to countries’ environmental performances.

3. Materials and Methods

A database was used that corresponded to the published statistics of the World Intellectual Property Organization and the Global Innovation Index 2021. The sub-pillars of education, research and development, investment, and environmental performance proposed in this index were considered variables (World Intellectual Property Organization 2021). The database published by The World Bank in 2021 was used as the control variable (World Bank Group 2022). Data from 132 countries included in the index database spanning East Asian and Pacific regions, Europe and Central Asia, Latin America and the Caribbean, the Middle East and North Africa, North America, South Asia, and Sub-Saharan Africa (Table 1).
The education variable is evaluated using sub-pillar 2.1 of the index, which focuses on an economy’s education and is determined using a score. This sub-pillar comprises expenditure on education, government funding/pupil, school-life expectancy, reading, math, and science scales, and pupil–teacher ratio. Data from sub-pillar 2.3 were taken to measure the research and development variable. This variable represents the research and development (R and D) level conducted and is measured uing scores. It is integrated from Sections 2.3.1 to 2.3.4 of the Global Innovation Index 2021, corresponding to researchers and gross expenditure on R and D, global corporate R and D investors, and university rankings. The sub-pillar 4.2 scores comprised the data taken for the investment variable. This sub-pillar is integrated from Sections 4.2.1 to 4.2.4 of the Global Innovation Index 2021 (ease of protecting minority investors, market capitalization, venture capital investors, and venture capital recipients). The environmental performance variable was measured using data from sub-pillar 3.3, which is an ecological sustainability score. This sub-pillar is integrated from Sections 3.3.1 to 3.3.3 of the Global Innovation Index 2021 (purchasing power parity gross domestic product (USD PPP GDP) per total energy supply, a gauge of how close countries are to established environmental policy targets, and the number of ISO 14001 certificates issued, per billion USD PPP GDP) (World Intellectual Property Organization 2021). The control variable was GDP per capita growth (percentage).
To answer the research question and carry out the hypotheses tests, partial correlation analyses, and linear regression analyses were carried out to obtain the best model of the analysis and thus determine the significant factors of the model. A correlation analysis is necessary to evaluate the linear association between the variables. However, it is recommended that we perform a partial correlation analysis if the association is affected by other variables for which control variables are used (Cordero et al. 2014). In this case, GDP was used as a control variable. As a result, three models were obtained where the dependent variable was environmental performance. The first model’s independent variables were education, research and development, and investment. In the second model, the independent variable was research and development.
Moreover, the third model’s independent variables were research and development and education. We assume that we must carry out a linear regression analysis since the variables not present multicollinearity.—(García et al. 2006; Baños et al. 2019). For this, the variance inflation factor was used, and the lower this value, the lower the multicollinearity between the variables (Baños et al. 2019). The criterion was that the calculated values were less than 10 (Kleinbaum et al. 2013; López-Roldán and Fachelli 2016). The SPSS package 29 was used in the data analysis.

4. Results

As a first stage for hypothesis testing, partial correlation analyses were performed to assess the influence of education, research and development, and investment on environmental performance. Table 2 shows the descriptive statistics of the variables. As the results show in Table 3, the environmental performance had a significant relationship with each study variable when the GDP controls the effects of the associations. The highest correlation coefficient was 0.548, corresponding to the relationship between environmental performance and research and development. Hypothesis 1 was tested because the investment was related to the environmental performance. Also, hypotheses 2 and 3 were tested. The environmental performance was related to education and research and development.
As a second stage for deepening the results, linear regression analyses were performed to assess the influence of education, research and development, and investment on environmental performance. Table 4 shows the analysis of the variance results of each model tested. As shown in Table 5, investment did not have a significant regression coefficient (β = 0.021, p = 0.785). Although education (β = 0.261, p = 0.004) and research and development (β = 0.394, p = 0.000) had a significant regression coefficient (model 1). The coefficient of determination (R2) indicates the degree to which the independent variables explained the dependent variable (Cohen et al. 2013). In this case, the value obtained was 0.337, which implies that education, research and development, and investment explain environmental performance by 33.7%.
A hierarchical linear regression analysis was carried out to expand upon our results and identify the best model that explains the environmental performance, resulting in two models, 2 and 3. In both models, the independent variables had a positive effect and were meaningful. However, of these, model 3 was the one that explained the environmental performance to a greater extent, 34.2% (R2 = 0.342), since model 2 had a lower coefficient of determination (R2 = 0.300).
In model 2, research and development had a significant regression coefficient (β = 0.552, p = 0.000). In model 3, education (β = 0.265, p = 0.003) and research and development (β = 0.400, p = 0.000) had a significant regression coefficient, implying that only these variables determine the countries’ environmental performance. Comparing these last two models, the variable with a higher degree of explanation in environmental performance is research and development, since when education is added in model 3, the change in R2 is 0.043. This value is much lower than when only research and development alone explain the environmental performance. In addition, the magnitude of the effect of research and development (β2 = 0.552, β3 = 0.400) is greater than that of education (β3 = 0.265) on countries’ environmental performances.

5. Discussion

The research results show that the countries’ education, research and development, and investment were associated with environmental performance; however, only education and research and development were factors that positively influenced the countries’ environmental performance, unlike investment in the countries. Regarding hypotheses 1 and 2, it has been confirmed that education and variables similar to an investment, such as economic wealth, influence environmental performance (Gallego-Alvarez et al. 2014). In this study, even though the economic variable, investment, was related to environmental performance, it was not a factor influencing environmental performance. Gallego-Alvarez et al. (2014) used secondary data from the Environmental Performance Index, unlike this research, which uses data from the Global Innovation Index 2021. The studies are conducted over several years, and changes in environmental performance factors may indicate an evolution of these factors. These results could imply that a few years ago, countries needed to have economic resources to create infrastructure or allocate resources to improve the environment. In contrast, with the results of this research, it can be inferred that when countries are innovative, measured as research and development, it results in a significant improvement in their performance, since they no longer only need economic resources but also the development of technologies, products, or other resources through research to reduce environmental damage. Something that stands out in the comparison of the study by Gallego-Alvarez et al. (2014) and this study is that education continues to be a relevant factor in improving the environment, which makes sense, since as long as the population has an education, it is expected that there will be more research and development.
Regarding hypothesis 3, when comparing the results of this research with a similar one by Almeida et al. (2017), it is confirmed that innovation-related variables are associated with environmental performance. These results indicate that technology positively affects environmental performance, while this study indicates that research and development also positively affect countries’ environmental performance. The difference in years between the research by Almeida et al. (2017) and this research is less than between the research by Gallego-Alvarez et al. (2014). Therefore, innovation has become more critical in environmental performance in recent years.
In the face of climate change, innovation is crucial, since it creates a positive change in the current state of affairs. It is the key to developing new products, services, and processes that favor environmental care and the sustainability of resources and our planet. Environmental innovation is a tool that allows the development of models for both the mitigation of and adaptation to climate change, with criteria and restrictions with a sustainable approach. Organizations have confirmed that research and development have a considerable role in reducing adverse environmental effects (Lee and Min 2014). Specifically, it has been proven that research and development towards the development of green technologies, reduction in energy consumption, carbon emissions, and green innovation have a positive effect on environmental performance (Alam et al. 2019; Awaworyi Churchill et al. 2019; Sahoo et al. 2023; Uyar et al. 2023). Furthermore, when analyzing countries, innovation is a variable that positively affects environmental performance (Pujiati et al. 2023).
According to Casas et al. (2017) and Castizo (2021), education and research and development are critical factors in agreements and actions to innovate and address rapidly developing environmental and sustainability problems. However, according to Casas et al. (2017), building science for sustainability implies training scientists with new visions and aligning governmental and non-governmental institutions, social organizations, and academic institutions at different scales to facilitate their interaction.
A broad vision and a willingness for disciplinary interaction are required to achieve research and development that allows innovation and addresses the complexity of systems. Scientists and academics value the contribution of natural and social sciences because there are no sciences that are better than others; they are different scientific fields that can complement each other and add more value to solving problems (Casas et al. 2017) and education is vital. It is also important to highlight that research and development in education focused on sustainable development are critical factors for the empowerment of students, academics, and society in general for the acceleration of sustainable solutions (UNESCO 2020).

6. Conclusions

The results imply that countries can be analyzed as organizations from a systemic point of view and that, according to their resources and capabilities, they have a competitive advantage according to the resource-based theoretical perspective. According to the results, countries’ resources that are associated with environmental performance are investment as a production resource, education as a learning resource, and research and development as a strategic vision resource.
We conclude that the education of citizens can lead to a greater awareness of the environmental damage caused by their actions and those of others. That, among other things, could cause more significant pressure on governments so that they generate changes in favor of the environment. The education of citizens could be the first way for countries to reduce their environmental damage. Promoting research and development in countries is often necessary, since this could generate innovative solutions to reduce environmental damage and mechanisms that address or reverse major global problems such as climate change. Specifically, promoting research and development focused on developing green technologies and innovation is encouraged because, as confirmed by organizational studies, it has positively affected environmental performance. Since the study uses the resource-based theoretical perspective framework from a systemic approach, it is expected that similar results will also be found at a country level.
While it is true that the differences between developing and developed countries puts the balance towards the latter to generate more remarkable changes for sustainability for their resources, it is also possible for developing countries to move towards sustainability. Although developing countries often do not have the necessary economic resources to improve their investment in education, they can align their public policies towards education and sustainability (environmental policies). Haque and Ntim (2018) confirmed that the development and implementation of environmental policies improve environmental performance, with which it is possible to take advantage of their budget and achieve sustainability. Countries can use the results of this study as a basis for developing public policies aimed at research and development for the environment and education.
Furthermore, these countries may complement education with other educational modalities supported by information technologies to combat a lack of education.
Given that education could generate pressure on governments to change their public policies, it is recommended that future research analyzes stakeholder theory. With this, they can analyze citizens’ roles in the environmental performance of countries considering education as a moderating variable, as well as analyze how innovation reduces the negative impact on the environment and what the determinants of this are. Furthermore, it is suggested that the scope for future research could be expanded by considering more actors and critical factors, such as institutions, the environment, energy, and climate change, which could contribute to achieving a transition towards sustainable development. This study could be analyzed through secondary data between countries or primary data analyzing only one country or group.
The study’s main limitation was that it was a cross-sectional study, which limits its scope, since it only shows results from one year. Therefore, the results could be affected by other elements, such as the effect of the COVID-19 pandemic, which has been documented to be an accelerator towards the green transition. The results of this study should be considered with caution. Future research can carry out a longitudinal study to analyze the behavior of the variables over the years and that will enable evaluation of the effects before and after the COVID-19 pandemic.
This research has implications for public policy and decision-makers, since the results show that the countries’ education, research, and development influence how they take measures to stop environmental deterioration. For this reason, governments are encouraged to establish or modify policies and strategies that promote education in their citizens and strengthen research and development in their countries, and with this, they can generate innovative strategies to benefit the environment.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, S.N.L.-H. and A.T.-B.; methodology, S.N.L.-H.; software, S.N.L.-H.; validation, S.N.L.-H. and A.T.-B.; formal analysis, S.N.L.-H. and A.T.-B.; resources, S.N.L.-H. and A.T.-B.; data curation, S.N.L.-H.; writing—original draft preparation, S.N.L.-H. and A.T.-B.; writing—review and editing, S.N.L.-H. and A.T.-B.; visualization, S.N.L.-H.; supervision, A.T.-B.; project administration, S.N.L.-H. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

No new data were created in this study. Data sharing does not apply to this article.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Adedoyin, Festus Fatai, Andrew Adewale Alola, and Festus Victor Bekun. 2020. An Assessment of Environmental Sustainability Corridor: The Role of Economic Expansion and Research and Development in EU Countries. Science of the Total Environment 713: 136726. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Adeel-Farooq, Rana Muhammad, Nor Aznin Abu Bakar, and Jimoh Olajide Raji. 2018. Green Field Investment and Environmental Performance: A Case of Selected Nine Developing Countries of Asia. Environmental Progress & Sustainable Energy 37: 1085–92. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Alam, Md. Samsul, Muhammad Atif, Chu Chien-Chi, and Uğur Soytaş. 2019. Does Corporate R&D Investment Affect Firm Environmental Performance? Evidence from G-6 Countries. Energy Economics 78: 401–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Al Halbusi, Hussam, Jane E. Klobas, and T. Ramayah. 2023. Green Core Competence and Firm Performance in a Post-Conflict Country, Iraq. Business Strategy and the Environment 32: 2702–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Almeida, Thiago Alexandre das Neves, Luís Cruz, Eduardo Barata, and Isabel-María García-Sánchez. 2017. Economic Growth and Environmental Impacts: An Analysis Based on a Composite Index of Environmental Damage. Ecological Indicators 76: 119–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Awan, Fazal Hussain, Liu Dunnan, Khalid Jamil, and Rana Faizan Gul. 2023. Stimulating Environmental Performance via Green Human Resource Management, Green Transformational Leadership, and Green Innovation: A Mediation-Moderation Model. Environmental Science and Pollution Research 30: 2958–76. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Awaworyi Churchill, Sefa, John Inekwe, Russell Smyth, and Xibin Zhang. 2019. R&D Intensity and Carbon Emissions in the G7: 1870–2014. Energy Economics 80: 30–37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Baños, Ruth Vilà, Mercedes Torrado-Fonseca, and Mercedes Reguant Álvarez. 2019. Análisis de Regresión Lineal Múltiple Con SPSS: Un Ejemplo Práctico. REIRE Revista d’Innovació i Recerca En Educació 12: 1–10. [Google Scholar]
  9. Barney, Jay. 1991. Firm Resources and Sustained Competitive Advantage. Journal of Management 17: 99–120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Bertoglio, Oscar Johansen. 1982. Introducción a La Teoría General de Sistemas. Mexico City: Editorial Limusa. [Google Scholar]
  11. Brumagim, Alan L. 1994. A Hierarchy of Corporate Resources. Advances in Strategic Management 10, Part A: 81–112. [Google Scholar]
  12. Carrión-Flores, Carmen E, and Robert Innes. 2010. Environmental Innovation and Environmental Performance. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 59: 27–42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Casas, Alejandro, Ignacio Torres, América Delgado-Lemus, Selene Rangel-Landa, Catarina Ilsley, Juan Torres-Guevara, Aldo Cruz, Fabiola Parra, Ana Isabel Moreno-Calles, and Andrés Camou. 2017. Ciencia Para La Sustentabilidad: Investigación, Educación y Procesos Participativos. Revista Mexicana de Biodiversidad 88: 113–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Castizo, Rosa. 2021. Innovación Para El Desarrollo Sostenible En Iberoamérica 2021. II Informe Del Observatorio La Rábida de Desarrollo Sostenible y Cambio Climático Para Iberoamérica En El Marco de La XXVII Cumbre Iberoamericana de Jefes de Estado y de Gobierno. Andorra, España. Observatorio Iberoamericano de Desarrollo Sostenible y Cambio Climático de La Rábida, Huelva. Available online: https://www.segib.org/wp-content/uploads/INFORME-IDS-LA-RABIDA-2021-ESP_bajaweb.pdf (accessed on 1 August 2023).
  15. Chams, Nour, and Josep García-Blandón. 2019. On the Importance of Sustainable Human Resource Management for the Adoption of Sustainable Development Goals. Resources, Conservation and Recycling 141: 109–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Cohen, Jacob, Patricia Cohen, Stephen G. West, and Leona S. Aiken. 2013. Applied Multiple Regression/Correlation Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences. New York: Routledge. [Google Scholar]
  17. Cordero, Leyva, Oswaldo y Flores Hernández, and María de los Ángeles. 2014. Análisis de Correlaciones Bivariadas y Parciales Con SPSS. In Métodos y Técnicas Cualitativas y Cuantitativas Aplicables a la Investigación en Ciencias Sociales. México: Tirant Humanidades, pp. 421–36. ISBN 9788416062324. [Google Scholar]
  18. Darroch, Jenny, and Rod McNaughton. 2002. Examining the Link between Knowledge Management Practices and Types of Innovation. Journal of Intellectual Capital 3: 210–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Dasgupta, Shouro, and Enrica De Cian. 2016. Institutions and the Environment: Existing Evidence and Future Directions. MITP: Mitigation, Innovation and Transformation Pathways, 240747. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Dasgupta, Susmita, Benoit Laplante, Hua Wang, and David Wheeler. 2002. Confronting the Environmental Kuznets Curve. Journal of Economic Perspectives 16: 147–68. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Ezzi, Ferdaws, and Anis Jarboui. 2016. Does Innovation Strategy Affect Financial, Social and Environmental Performance? Journal of Economics, Finance and Administrative Science 21: 14–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Fletcher, Charlie. 2023. The Importance of Environmental Education for a Sustainable Future. Earth.Org. Available online: https://earth.org/environmental-education/ (accessed on 2 January 2024).
  23. Gallego-Alvarez, Isabel, Ma Purificación Vicente-Galindo, Ma Purificación Galindo-Villardón, and Miguel Rodríguez-Rosa. 2014. Environmental Performance in Countries Worldwide: Determinant Factors and Multivariate Analysis. Sustainability 6: 7807–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Ganda, Fortune. 2019. The Impact of Innovation and Technology Investments on Carbon Emissions in Selected Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development Countries. Journal of Cleaner Production 217: 469–83. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. García, J. L., F. Chagolla, and S. A. Noriega. 2006. Efectos de La Colinealidad En El Modelado de Regresión y Su Solución. Revista CULCyT 3: 88–96. [Google Scholar]
  26. Haque, Faizul, and Collins G. Ntim. 2018. Environmental Policy, Sustainable Development, Governance Mechanisms and Environmental Performance. Business Strategy and the Environment 27: 415–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Hassaballa, Hoda. 2013. Environment and Foreign Direct Investment: Policy Implications for Developing Countries. Journal of Emerging Issues in Economics, Finance and Banking 1: 75–106. [Google Scholar]
  28. Holt, Jared, Ahmed Skali, and Russell Thomson. 2021. The Additionality of R&D Tax Policy: Quasi-Experimental Evidence. Technovation 107: 102293. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Hsu, Ching-Chi, Ngo Quang-Thanh, FengSheng Chien, Li Li, and Muhammad Mohsin. 2021. Evaluating Green Innovation and Performance of Financial Development: Mediating Concerns of Environmental Regulation. Environmental Science and Pollution Research 28: 57386–97. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Ismail, Sherif Said Metwally, and Omnia Abdelazeem Hilal. 2023. Behaving Green.. Who Takes the Lead? The Role of Responsible Leadership, Psychological Ownership, and Green Moral Identity in Motivating Employees Green Behaviors. Global Business and Organizational Excellence 42: 11–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Jacobi, Pedro Roberto, Renata Ferraz de Toledo, and Edson Grandisoli. 2016. Education, Sustainability and Social Learning. Brazilian Journal of Science and Technology 3: 3. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Kleinbaum, David G., Lawrence L. Kupper, Azhar Nizam, and Eli S. Rosenberg. 2013. Applied Regression Analysis and Other Multivariable Methods. Boston: Cengage Learning. [Google Scholar]
  33. Leal Filho, Walter, Luciana Londero Brandli, Amanda Lange Salvia, Lez Rayman-Bacchus, and Johannes Platje. 2020. COVID-19 and the UN Sustainable Development Goals: Threat to Solidarity or an Opportunity? Sustainability 12: 5343. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Lee, Jongoh, G. H. Myamesheva, and K. K. Kindikbayeva. 2017. Education in the 21st Century: Digital Philosophy and Philosophy in Digital Reality. Advanced Science Letters 23: 9368–73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Lee, Ki-Hoon, and Byung Min. 2014. Globalization and Carbon Constrained Global Economy: A Fad or a Trend? Journal of Asia-Pacific Business 15: 105–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Li, Ruiqian, and Ramakrishnan Ramanathan. 2020. Can Environmental Investments Benefit Environmental Performance? The Moderating Roles of Institutional Environment and Foreign Direct Investment. Business Strategy and the Environment 29: 3385–98. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Li, Zhenghui, Hao Dong, Zimei Huang, and Pierre Failler. 2019. Impact of Foreign Direct Investment on Environmental Performance. Sustainability 11: 3538. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Lin, Yu-Chun. 2017. Does R&D Investment under Corporate Social Responsibility Increase Firm Performance? Investment Management and Financial Innovations 14: 217–26. [Google Scholar]
  39. López-Roldán, Pedro, and Sandra Fachelli. 2016. Análisis de Regresión. In Metodología de La Investigación Social Cuantitativa. Bellaterra: Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona. [Google Scholar]
  40. Madhani, Pankaj M. 2010. The Resource-Based View (RBV): Issues and Perspectives. PACE, A Journal of Research of Prestige Institute of Management 1: 43–55. [Google Scholar]
  41. Penrose, Edith Tilton. 2009. The Theory of the Growth of the Firm. Oxford: Oxford University Press. [Google Scholar]
  42. Pujiati, Amin, Shela Mareta Fera Feronica, and Abdul Rahim Ridzuan. 2023. Measurement of The Role of Innovation in Increasing Environmental Performance Index: Empirical Study in Developed and Non-Developed Countries. International Business and Accounting Research Journal 7: 18–36. [Google Scholar]
  43. Rehman, Shafique Ur, Sascha Kraus, Syed Asim Shah, Dmitry Khanin, and Raj V. Mahto. 2021. Analyzing the Relationship between Green Innovation and Environmental Performance in Large Manufacturing Firms. Technological Forecasting and Social Change 163: 120481. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Ríos, Víctor Alonso Domínguez, and Miguel Ángel López Santillán. 2016. Teoría General de Sistemas, Un Enfoque Práctico. Tecnociencia Chihuahua 10: 125–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Rojas, José Jesús Guerrero. 2021. Impacto Ambiental de La Pandemia de La COVID-19:¿ Dónde Estamos? Innova Biology Sciences: Revista Científica de Biología y Conservación 1: 6–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Sahoo, Saumyaranjan, Anil Kumar, and Arvind Upadhyay. 2023. How Do Green Knowledge Management and Green Technology Innovation Impact Corporate Environmental Performance? Understanding the Role of Green Knowledge Acquisition. Business Strategy and the Environment 32: 551–69. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Sarpong, David, Derrick Boakye, George Ofosu, and David Botchie. 2023. The Three Pointers of Research and Development (R&D) for Growth-Boosting Sustainable Innovation System. Technovation 122: 102581. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Sethi, Narayan, Aurolipsa Das, Malayaranjan Sahoo, Saileja Mohanty, and Padmaja Bhujabal. 2022. Foreign Direct Investment, Financial Development and Economic Prosperity in Major South Asian Economies. South Asian Journal of Business Studies 11: 82–103. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Shibin, K. T., Rameshwar Dubey, Angappa Gunasekaran, Benjamin Hazen, David Roubaud, Shivam Gupta, and Cyril Foropon. 2020. Examining Sustainable Supply Chain Management of SMEs Using Resource Based View and Institutional Theory. Annals of Operations Research 290: 301–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Sibanda, Kin, Dorcas Gonese, and Rufaro Garidzirai. 2023. Human Capital and Environmental Sustainability Nexus in Selected SADC Countries. Resources 12: 52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Singh, Sanjay Kumar, Manlio Del Giudice, Roberto Chierici, and Domenico Graziano. 2020. Green Innovation and Environmental Performance: The Role of Green Transformational Leadership and Green Human Resource Management. Technological Forecasting and Social Change 150: 119762. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Steiner, Gerald, and Alfred Posch. 2006. Higher Education for Sustainability by Means of Transdisciplinary Case Studies: An Innovative Approach for Solving Complex, Real-World Problems. Journal of Cleaner Production 14: 877–90. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. UNESCO. 2020. Educación Para El Desarrollo Sostenible Hoja de Ruta. UNESCO. Available online: https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000374896.locale=es (accessed on 1 August 2023).
  54. United Nations. 2015. Sustainable Development Goals. Available online: https://sdgs.un.org/goals (accessed on 1 August 2023).
  55. United Nations. 2021. Desarrollo Sostenible. Available online: https://www.un.org/es/ga/president/65/issues/sustdev.shtml (accessed on 1 August 2023).
  56. United Nations. 2023. 4 Quality Education. Available online: https://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/education/ (accessed on 2 January 2024).
  57. United States Environmental Protection Agency. 2022. La Importancia de La Educación Ambiental. ¿Qué Es La Educación Ambiental? Available online: https://espanol.epa.gov/espanol/la-importancia-de-la-educacion-ambiental#es (accessed on 1 August 2023).
  58. Uyar, Ali, Cemil Kuzey, Ali Meftah Gerged, and Abdullah S. Karaman. 2023. Research and Development Intensity, Environmental Performance, and Firm Value: Unraveling the Nexus in the Energy Sector Worldwide. Business Strategy and the Environment 32: 1582–602. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. World Bank Group. 2022. GDP per Capita Growth (Annual %). Available online: https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.PCAP.KD.ZG (accessed on 2 January 2024).
  60. World Intellectual Property Organization. 2021. Global Innovation Index 2021. Geneva: World Intellectual Property Organization. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. World Intellectual Property Organization. 2022. Global Innovation Index 2022: What Is the Future of Innovation-Driven Growth? Geneva: World Intellectual Property Organization. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Xu, Jian, Xiuhua Wang, and Feng Liu. 2021. Government Subsidies, R&D Investment and Innovation Performance: Analysis from Pharmaceutical Sector in China. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management 33: 535–53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Yin, Wei, Berna Kirkulak-Uludag, and Ziling Chen. 2021. Is the Sharing Economy Green? Evidence from Cross-Country Data. Sustainability 13: 12023. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Table 1. Data description.
Table 1. Data description.
RegionFrequency
Central and Southern Asia10
Low-income group1
Lower middle-income group7
Upper middle-income group2
Europe39
High-income group29
Lower middle-income group2
Upper middle-income group8
Latin America and the Caribbean18
High-income group4
Lower middle-income group3
Upper middle-income group11
Northern Africa and Western Asia19
High-income group8
Low-income group1
Lower middle-income group4
Upper middle-income group6
Northern America2
High-income group2
South East Asia, East Asia, and Oceania17
High-income group7
Lower middle-income group6
Upper middle-income group4
Sub-Saharan Africa27
High-income group1
Low-income group11
Lower middle-income group12
Upper middle-income group3
Total132
Table 2. Descriptive statistics.
Table 2. Descriptive statistics.
VariableMeanStandard DeviationN
Environmental performance30.884712.60278131
Investment34.376616.99941131
Research and development19.511323.73309131
Education48.343714.72364131
GDP4.94924.21733131
Table 3. Partial correlations analyses.
Table 3. Partial correlations analyses.
InvestmentResearch and DevelopmentEducation
Control variable GDPEnvironmental performanceCorrelation0.2140.5480.410
Signification (bilateral)0.0150.0000.000
Degrees of freedom128128128
Control variable: GDP per capita growth.
Table 4. Analysis of variance.
Table 4. Analysis of variance.
ModelSum of SquaresDegrees of FreedomMean SquaresF Valuep Values
1Regression7271.02232423.67423.0100.000 a
Residual13,376.874127105.330
Total20,647.896130
2Regression6306.67816306.67857.1050.000 b
Residual14,357.294130110.441
Total20,663.972131
3Regression7263.15423631.57734.7290.000 c
Residual13,384.742128104.568
Total20,647.896130
a-predictor variable: (constant) research and development, education, investment. b-predictor variable: (constant) research and development. c-predictor variable: (constant) research and development, education.
Table 5. Results of the linear regression analysis.
Table 5. Results of the linear regression analysis.
ModelIndependent VariableStandardized Betat Valuesp ValuesVIF ValuesR2Durbin-Watson
1Constant15.4434.3840.000 0.3371.965
Education0.2612.9660.0041.523
Research and development0.3944.3590.0001.598
Investment0.0210.2730.7851.207
2Constant25.17521.2650.000 0.3001.909
Research and development0.5527.5570.0001.000
3Constant15.7784.7960.000 0.3421.957
Research and development0.4004.6020.0001.491
Education0.2653.0490.0031.491
R2—determination coefficient.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Leyva-Hernández, S.N.; Terán-Bustamante, A. Country-Level Environmental Performance: Investment, Education, and Research and Development. Soc. Sci. 2024, 13, 164. https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci13030164

AMA Style

Leyva-Hernández SN, Terán-Bustamante A. Country-Level Environmental Performance: Investment, Education, and Research and Development. Social Sciences. 2024; 13(3):164. https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci13030164

Chicago/Turabian Style

Leyva-Hernández, Sandra Nelly, and Antonia Terán-Bustamante. 2024. "Country-Level Environmental Performance: Investment, Education, and Research and Development" Social Sciences 13, no. 3: 164. https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci13030164

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop