Meta-Analysis of Environmental Effectiveness, and Carbon Taxation Strategic Adaptation: Implications for Developing Economies

Meta-Analysis of Environmental Effectiveness, and Carbon Taxation Strategic Adaptation: Implications for Developing Economies

*Justin Mulwa., Dr. Joanes Kyongo

School of Business and Economics, Daystar University, Nairobi, Kenya

*Corresponding Author

DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.47772/IJRISS.2025.909000571

Received: 20 September 2025; Accepted: 27 September 2025; Published: 18 October 2025

ABSTRACT

The purpose of this study was to systematically review and conduct a meta-analysis on the effect of environmental effectiveness on carbon taxation strategic adaptation. The competitiveness and innovation, particularly employment, total productivity, and foreign direct investment capability of a nation, could predict the adoption of carbon taxation strategies, especially in developing economies where the need for economic growth and development may override the need to address the existential threat of climate change. Carbon taxation, environmental tax, green tax, and carbon emissions trading have been shown to catalyze the reduction of carbon dioxide emissions, which is a key ingredient of climate change. Using data drawn from Scopus and Web of Science databases, a total of 55 articles were reviewed and included in meta-analysis following the guidance of the PRISMA flowchart. The results from meta-analysis pointed that random-effects pooled effect μ = −0.038 (SE = 0.010; 95% CI −0.057, −0.019; k = 55); Q (54) = 1902.03, p < 0.001; I² = 97.2%; τ² = 0.004059; H² = 35.22; 95% PI −0.165 to 0.088; region differences significant (Q-between (10) = 45.05, p = 2.1×10⁻⁶). Drawing from these statistical conventions, emissions fall on average, but very large heterogeneity and a wide PI indicate realized abatement depends on coverage, exemptions, price credibility, and complements, including grids, standards, and diffusion support. It is concluded that effectiveness is real but conditional, meaning a stronger carbon tax design yields larger and more durable reductions of carbon emissions.

Keywords: Environmental, Effectiveness, Carbon Taxation, Strategic Adaptation, Carbon Dioxide Emissions, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Emission reduction

INTRODUCTION

Globally, it is an important part of the diversification of economic instruments that countries have to address climate change and its impact on environmental degradation (Metcalf, 2019; 2021). Carbon taxation may provide the dual benefit of expanding revenues that the government needs for public investments towards transitioning to green development (Metcalf & Stock, 2020). Carbon taxes can also be instrumental in creating incentives that reduce emissions and pollution, effectively contributing to the mitigation of climate change effects (Dussaux, 2020).

According to data from the World Bank (2022a) as of May 2022, only 46 jurisdictions had introduced carbon pricing schemes. These schemes covered a total of 23% of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions globally. Among the 46 jurisdictions, 36 jurisdictions priced carbon through a carbon tax, covering about 5.7% of the worldwide GHG emissions. These jurisdictions that have implemented carbon tax charge carbon tax rates ranging from US$0.8 per ton of carbon dioxide (CO2) equivalent (CO2e) in Poland, to the highest in Uruguay at US$137 per ton of CO2e. Norway has the highest proportion of its carbon tax to national GHG emissions at 98%, Spain at 2.9% and South Africa at 0.9%.

In Africa, only South Africa has implemented a carbon tax since 2019; the proportion of its carbon tax revenue to the national GHG is below even the least in the developed countries. The adoption of a carbon tax in Africa has been particularly slow due to the high tax rates set, the informality of economies, limited tax brackets, and few formal sectors (Yiadom et al., 2024). Further, the introduction of carbon taxes into already established taxes has complex implications, considering that existing taxes are already a burden to most taxpayers (Bashir et al., 2021).

Research Problem

The disruptive nature of climate change effects requires strategic adaptation to carbon taxation as an important contribution to emissions reductions. However, barriers such as high tax rates, informal economies, limited tax brackets, and political resistance have hindered carbon taxation strategic adaptation in developing economies (World Bank, 2022a). Therefore, formulating laws, policies, and regulations is important to facilitate carbon taxation strategic adaptation and emission reduction in both developed and developing economies. Though a critical avenue to reducing carbon emissions, strategic adaptation to carbon taxation policies must be grounded on existing empirical evidence of what works, how it works, and its likely impact on society and the economy (Metcalf & Stock, 2020; Koppl & Schratzenstaller, 2022).

The existing evidence points to carbon taxation’s effectiveness in mitigating the socio-economic impact of climate change and its effect on competitiveness, innovation, macroeconomic performance, environmental effectiveness, and distributional implications (Koppl & Schratzenstaller, 2022). Carbon tax effectiveness in the United Kingdom, for instance, found that the Climate Change Levy (a form of the carbon tax but differentiated across fuels) facilitated the decrease in carbon dioxide emissions by 8.4%, energy intensity by 18.1%, and electricity use by 22.6% between 1999 and 2004 (Martin et al., 2014). In France, a carbon tax reduced CO2 emissions by 1%-5% between 2014 and 2018 (Dussaux, 2020). Still, in Switzerland, between 2008 and 2015, carbon emissions were reduced from an estimated 6.9 million tons by carbon taxation policies (Metcalf & Stock, 2021). In British Columbia (Canada), several studies investigated the model of carbon tax using variables related to the environment. A total reduction of between 5%-15% was realized between 2008 and 2015 (Murray & Rivers, 2015). However, Pretis (2022), using various econometric models, found that CO2 emissions decreased by 5% in the transport sector, though the aggregate reduction could not be detected between 2008 and 2016; the reason being that carbon was low-priced to create any significant impact.

Drawn from the evidence of Martin et al. (2014), Dussaux (2020), and Metcalf and Stock (2021), different countries are at different stages of carbon taxation adaptation, with a possible influence of sustainability initiatives implemented to promote the uptake of carbon taxation policies. Evidence shows that the inclusion of sustainability initiatives such as green investments and technology innovation has increased the acceptance of carbon taxation (Qiao et al., 2024). Sweden, for instance, gradually increased their carbon tax and used the revenue to support clean energy and public transport initiatives, consequently leading to carbon taxation strategies being politically and socially acceptable (Jonsson, 2023).

Though evidence has proven that carbon taxation strategic adaptation is critical to the reduction of carbon emissions, there is a lack of unified understanding of the modalities for its implementation, specifically among developing economies.  It is against the backdrop of this gap that this study sets out to examine, through a systematic review and meta-analysis, the extent to which carbon taxation is implicated by socio-economic factors such as competitiveness and innovation, macroeconomic factors, environmental effectiveness, and distribution effects.

Scope of the Study

The study adopted systematic review and meta-analysis to ensure both methodological rigor and in-depth analysis of the phenomenon under investigation. This approach was guided by the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) framework for data synthesis. The search strategy included search strings and the Boolean operators to extract data from peer-reviewed publications and grey literature sourced from the databases of Web of Science and Scopus. The papers were limited to publication on carbon taxation, environmental effectiveness, competitiveness and innovation, macroeconomic effects, and distributional implications from the global pool of empirical evidence published between 1990 and 2024. Random-effect model was used as the primary model for analysis, with fixed-effect acting as a confirmation of the observed values to account for heterogeneity across sourced studies.

Significance of the Study

The findings of the study are important to the government to inform the formulation and implementation of legal frameworks and other policies critical to the implementation of carbon taxation strategic adaptation in Kenya. It can further help anchor critical decisions to ensure that the implementation of carbon taxation is grounded on scientific evidence derived from numerous scientific studies examined from a global perspective. In practice, the study is able to influence various organizations, businesses, and other entities’ systems and operations on how to adapt to carbon taxation. The findings of the study contribute to the build-up of academic knowledge, especially in developing countries where literature is scarce on carbon taxation strategic adaptation, particularly for Africa, where the implementation of explicit carbon taxation is minimal.

Theoretical Underpinnings

Triple Bottom-Line Model

The Triple Bottom-Line Model suggests that businesses should not only focus on financial profits but should also focus on two additional bottom lines: social and environmental performance (Elkington, 1994; Gimenez, 2012). Due to the nature of environmental resources that support businesses, strategic managers should balance between economics, society, and the environment (Longoni & Cagliano, 2016; Bohlmann et al., 2018). The model asserts that economic prosperity is essential; however, it is not sufficient for all societal well-being (Skouloudis et al., 2009). It argues that businesses should consider their impact on society and the environment alongside financial profits (Farooq et al., 2021), which enhances the effectiveness of the environment to yield resources for the economic needs of a country.

An example of the role of triple bottom line consideration is that businesses may consider innovative green products that save the environment while improving living standards. It also suggests that businesses should strive to create positive social impacts, including job creation, community development, and fair labor practices (Lozano, 2015; Miemczyk & Lucini, 2019).  For instance, companies integrate TBL principles into their operations by measuring and reporting their social and environmental impacts together with financial results (Braccini & Margherita, 2018; Birkel et al., 2019). Thus, the tenets of the model often involve producing sustainability audits, adopting sustainable practices, and engaging with stakeholders. It provides a comprehensive framework for examining the interactions between environmental effectiveness pursued by corporations in the midst of carbon taxation policies (Literal & Guhao, 2021; Mattera & Gava, 2021).

Sustainable Development Theory

The theory posits that economic, social, and environmental systems are interconnected and mutually dependent (Mitcham, 1995; Zhang, 2018). Any development strategy must take into account the interactions and trade-offs between these dimensions (Sadegh, 2014). The emphasis is on the importance of meeting the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs using the same resources (Pagett, 2018; Silvestre & Tirca, 2019).  Sustainable development theory helps identify and navigate trade-offs between economic growth, social equity, and environmental sustainability (Hansmann et al., 2012). It can inform decision-making processes related to carbon taxation strategic adaptation, particularly when an economy considers being innovative and competitive (Mensah, 2019).

Carbon taxation policies can contribute to environmental resilience by incentivizing investments in low-carbon technologies, which enhance energy efficiency while diversifying economies to continuously remain competitive and innovative despite the implementation of carbon taxation policies. Hassan et al. (2022) anchored megaprojects evaluation on sustainable development theory, where such developments are considered along environmental sustainability. It has been applied in understanding long-term strategic management, especially in the face of climate change, and how such development strategies support sustainable quality development, which ultimately leads to an effective environment (Pratono, 2021; Martensson et al., 2023). The principles of SDT are incorporated into frameworks such as the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), from which it is empirically adopted to premise and anchor models for corporate sustainability initiatives and environmental management systems across the globe (Sawin & Wallentin, 2019).

LITERATURE REVIEW

Environmental Effectiveness

Environmental effectiveness is defined as the ability of carbon pricing policies to achieve their intended objectives of reducing greenhouse gas emissions and mitigating climate change (Huber et al., 2019). Environmental effectiveness is one of the measures of business internal processes and business sustainability outcomes (Ghazouani et al., 2020). The effectiveness of carbon taxation depends on various factors such as the design of the tax, the level of the tax rate, and the coverage of sectors and pollutants (Chen et al., 2020). The environmental effectiveness of carbon taxation policies can influence strategic adaptation efforts. It can shape the incentives and opportunities for innovation, investment, and policy development (Ghazouani et al., 2020). Policies that are perceived as environmentally effective are more likely to garner public and political support (Usman & Alola, 2023; Quynh et al., 2023). These can hence facilitate the implementation of complementary measures to support emission reduction efforts (Chen et al., 2020).

Carbon Taxation Strategic Adaptation

Carbon taxation strategic adaptation involves the proactive adjustment and refinement of carbon pricing policies (Ghazouani et al., 2020). It also involves the establishment of strategies and approaches to enhance policy effectiveness, efficiency, and social acceptability (Hai-Tao et al., 2023). Carbon taxation strategic adaptation can therefore increase the rate of attainment of climate mitigation objectives and address broader socioeconomic considerations (Feindt et al., 2021). It encompasses a range of actions and measures aimed at optimizing policy design, implementation, and outcomes that respond to changing environmental, economic, social, and political dynamics (Fankhauser et al., 2013).

Environmental Effectiveness, and Carbon Taxation Strategic Adaptation

Koppl and Schratzenstaller (2022) conducted an empirical review of the literature on carbon taxation. The study reviewed literature on carbon pricing, specifically carbon tax, regarding several impact dimensions commonly studied in extant literature, including macroeconomic effects, distributional implications, environmental effectiveness, competitiveness and innovation, and public acceptance. The review found that carbon taxes can reduce carbon emissions. Carbon taxes can also dampen carbon emissions growth without any negative effect on economic growth, competitiveness, and employment. Distributional implications of carbon taxes were found to be dependent on the type of energy use, and the measures to capture distributional effects and other household characteristics. Lump-sum funds transfer was indicated to be a good mitigator of regressivity effects for lower-income households. Those of higher income brackets were shown to benefit more from reduced labor taxes. Public information provision was found to increase public acceptance of carbon taxes. It also led to the avoidance of negative distributional effects while revenue from carbon taxes was channeled to environmental projects. This study has adopted one of the variables from the study to expand the existing knowledge through this meta-analysis.

Dogan et al. (2022) proposed a way forward in reducing carbon emissions in environmentally friendly countries and the role of green growth and environmental taxes. The study adopted an advanced panel data analysis from 25 environmentally friendly countries from 1994 to 2018. Novel quantile regressions were also applied to the large dataset. The outcome of the analysis revealed that the coefficients of green growth, environmental taxes, renewable energy, and energy efficiency were negative at lower, medium, and higher quantiles, respectively. However, the findings generally agreed that environmental taxes, renewable energy, and energy efficiency significantly reduce CO2 emissions. The study also indicated that renewable energy should be prioritized, but also that environmental taxes should be implemented alongside government subsidies to reduce distributional implications on the public. The study collected panel data through a large sample within a specific period and among only 25 select countries in the world. This study expanded this scope by reviewing what has been done all over the world to decrease the impact of CO2 emissions. Carbon taxation (environmental taxes), renewable energy, and energy efficiency are some of the elements under the broader category of the studied variables, to further enhance this understanding.

Soku et al. (2023) assessed the environmental tax, carbon emissions, and female economic inclusion. The study employed a quantitative research method. Generalized Method of Moments (GMM) on data from 65 countries between 1994 and 2020 was used for analysis. The environmental tax was found to have a significant negative effect on carbon emissions. Firms with a higher presence of female included in their economic strategies showed decreased levels of carbon emissions as compared to their male-dominated counterparts. The study further revealed that firms with more female economic inclusion tended to implement environmentally sustainable practices, hence reducing carbon emissions. The study introduced the carbon emissions engendering with a focus on female economic inclusion. However, climate change may tend to disadvantage women, but some of its impacts do not discriminate. This study investigated studies where all genders are targeted to further identify the gaps that governments can focus on to improve carbon taxation policy implementation and the improvement of the environment.

Hussain et al. (2022) examined the role of green transport, environmental taxes, and expenditures in mitigating transport CO2 emissions. A cross-sectional autoregressive distributed lags estimator for short-long-run estimates, together with panel data from 35 OECD countries. The findings of the study showed that as traffic increased, carbon emissions on average increased by 14.65%. The study also estimated that in the short run, transport-led carbon emissions would rise by 1.5% due to the combined effect of rail and road vehicles, as well as energy consumption. Further, environmental expenditure and green transportation were predicted to cut transport emissions by 21.7% and 45.20% in the short and long runs, respectively. It was also further shown that an inverted U-shape existed between transport-led carbon emissions and consumption. The study focused on carbon emissions as the outcome variable. However, there are several ways to reduce emissions. This meta-analysis has focused on environmental effectiveness as a key goal for implementing environmental taxes as one of the avenues to reduce emissions. Cognizing that transport is one of the major pollutants, understanding the global perspectives is important for policy design and implementation, taking into consideration the practical aspects for improvement.

Pudasaini et al. (2024) compared major carbon offset standards for soil carbon projects in Australian grazing lands. A review of the literature on three leading carbon standards was conducted. The study analyzed various criteria, including scope, eligibility/applicability, newness and additionality, permanency, baselines and quantification methodology, environmental sustainability, safeguard mechanisms, and crediting period. The findings of the study indicated that when emission reduction funding is involved in carbon emissions reduction programs, there is a positive and high rating of soil carbon projects. This also indicated that carbon offset incentives, including funding, are critical to achieving desirable results in the efforts to reduce the impact of global carbon footprints, thereby enhancing environmental effectiveness. The study, however, focused on Australia, where other conditions, including environmental laws and conditions, could be different from those in other global regions, especially those of developing economies. Also, the items selected for measurement might not uniformly apply to other countries. Thus, it was important to acquire a global picture of the impact of incentives on carbon emissions reduction, which are aimed at environmental effectiveness and improvement.

METHODOLOGY

Research Philosophy

The proposed study was underpinned by a pragmatist research philosophy. The use of pragmatist philosophy in conducting systematic reviews and meta-analyses is justified in many ways. Pragmatism is oriented toward solving practical problems and is highly applicable when the research aims to address real-world issues (Yiaueki, 2023). These issues, such as competitiveness and innovation, carbon taxation, and strategic adaptation, can be better analyzed from the pragmatist view. The philosophy is also flexible in its methodological approach since it allows for the use of mixed methods to gain a comprehensive understanding of the research problem. This aligns with the use of both qualitative and quantitative approaches in systematic literature review and meta-analysis since the findings are also more focused on the practical implications of research findings (Wilson, 2023). It also provides a robust framework for analyzing complex socio-economic and environmental data for the relevance of informing policy on the influence of environmental effectiveness on carbon taxation policies (Katzav, 2023).

Research Design

This encompasses specifying the data collection method, determining the instruments to be utilized, outlining how these instruments will be administered, and establishing the procedures for organizing and analyzing the gathered information (Riebe, 2023). The proposed study will adopt a Systematic Review with a Meta-Analysis of literature on the phenomenon of carbon taxation strategic adaptation, and its relationship with socio-economic factors and sustainability initiatives. A systematic review and meta-analysis aims to compile all empirical evidence meeting predetermined eligibility criteria to address a specific research question or hypothesis (Pahlevansharif et al., 2019). It involves a comprehensive literature search of multiple databases to ensure all relevant studies are included and screened for the review and further selected based on scientific methods for meta-analysis (Draborg et al., 2022). Meta-analysis, on the other hand, provides a quantitative synthesis that involves the statistical combination of results from multiple studies (Cho & Kim, 2024). This capability yields a more precise estimate of effects or relationships. Meta-analysis also provides for the assessment of heterogeneity, being the variability among study results, to understand the consistency of findings across different contexts and study designs (Xiao et al., 2022).

Eligibility Criteria

The data was gathered from peer-reviewed journals from 1990 to 2024, published in the English Language only. This period was selected because the first known carbon tax was implemented in Finland in 1990.  The studies covered various socioeconomic groups and industries affected by carbon taxation, focusing on topics such as innovativeness and competition, macroeconomic effects, environmental effectiveness, distributional implications, carbon pricing, political feasibility, carbon tax rates, carbon offset programs, green technologies, and stakeholder engagement, across diverse geographical contexts, including both developed and developing countries. Exclusion criteria covered theoretical papers or opinion pieces without empirical evidence, editorials, letters to the editor, and news articles. Non-peer-reviewed studies or those published in non-academic sources, as well as grey literature. Further, studies published before 1990 were excluded, and non-English studies or those without available translations were also excluded. Studies that focused on populations irrelevant to the research questions, non-human subjects, or populations not impacted by carbon taxation were also excluded, as guided by Gusenbauer and Haddaway (2019).  Additionally, studies that did not mention carbon taxation and socio-economic factors in their titles, abstracts, content, measurements, or that do not address socio-economic factors and strategic adaptation to carbon taxation were excluded. Studies providing only descriptive statistics without cause-and-effect analysis of factors or carbon taxation adaptation strategies, those limited in contextual scope to the point of non-generalizability, those with significant methodological challenges or high risk of bias, and any study that did not directly address the research question or objectives were also excluded. Studies without readily available full texts or adequate data for extraction and analysis were excluded as well.

Search Strategy

The materials included in the analysis were extracted from Web of Science and Scopus databases. Since there were sufficient peer-reviewed journals from these two databases, there was no need for additional searching for grey literature in any source, including Google, government reports, IPPCC pages, and other sources. A detailed search criterion was developed, which included a search string with Boolean operators that combined all the variables in the study. The string was framed as

“socio-economic factors” OR “economic competitiveness” OR employment OR “labor productivity” OR “foreign direct investment” OR GDP OR “carbon dividend” OR “economic growth” OR “CO2 emissions” OR “greenhouse gas emissions” OR “GHG per capita” OR “carbon-intensive goods” OR inequality OR “labor market” OR “capital allocation” OR “co-benefits”) AND (“strategic adaptation” OR “carbon pricing” OR “carbon tax” OR “carbon tax rates” OR “climate policy” OR “political feasibility” OR “climate strategy” OR “emission trading” OR “cap-and-trade” OR “carbon taxation”). Date range, language of publication, and type of article were also included in the search strategy and fed into the advanced search provisions in the two databases.

The study then conducted the initial screening of titles and abstracts to apply the inclusion and exclusion criteria. This was then followed by full-text reviews for those papers that qualify past the initial screening, particularly attending to their methodologies, measurements, and results as per the study variables. Two reviewers were engaged in the initial screening and full-text screening using the Covidence software. A third reviewer was used to solve cases of conflicts in the screened studies and full-text qualifying studies. The outcome of this process was further output to the PRISMA Flowchart. Using this search kind of strategy enhanced the reviews’ credibility and reproducibility of the strategy as well as the findings (Lorenc et al. 2016).

Data Sources and Data Selection  

Data for this study were sourced from two major databases, that is, Web of Science and Scopus, using a predetermined protocol. Grey literature was not sourced because the two databases yielded sufficient data for the analysis (Visser et al, 2021). These databases were chosen due to their authenticity, originality, and large volume of scholarly articles they list. According to Gusenbauer and Haddaway (2020), Web of Science and Scopus are widely used and accepted for their comprehensiveness, efficient coverage, transparent search algorithms, and high-quality academic papers, making them suitable for systematic reviews in the social sciences. The data was further filtered through the phases of identification, screening, and inclusion as per the PRISMA Flowchart, as per Figure 1.

Figure 1: PRISMA Model Flowchart

Source: The PRISMA Statement (2023)

Note: ** These excluded studies were not directly related to the study variables or their indicators as per the conceptual framework.

Tools, including the Data Extraction Excel Sheet and Covidence, were used to extract, synthesize, and develop the studies included in the analysis. These are informed by cost constraints, acceptability, usability, and universality (Patino & Ferreira, 2018). A total of 27 checklists were further used to ensure that the review and analysis of the collected data is non-biased (Page et al., 2021). The synthesis was further strengthened by engaging two independent reviewers to ensure that discrepancies were further improved, data accuracy, and credibility as per the guidance by Siddaway et al. (2018).

Data Extraction

Data from the selected materials were extracted into an Excel sheet and Covidence. The sheet captured data, including the study details, that is, the author or authors, year of publication, country of publication or origin, publication type (journal articles, reviews, empirical studies), and the exact measures used across the socioeconomic factors, sustainability initiatives, and carbon taxation strategic adaptation. This data was then organized systematically using the year of publication as the lead determinant of extraction (Page et al, 2021). Data extraction was attached in Annexure 6.

Risk of Bias and Quality Assessment

The study assessed the risk of bias using specifically the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool and ROBINS-I for risk of bias and Newcastle-Ottawa Scale and JBI Critical Appraisal Checklist for quality assessment as guided by Cumpston et al. (2019). Cochrane’s tool assessed randomized trials, while ROBINS-I will evaluate non-randomized studies for confounding bias. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale and JBI Critical Appraisal Checklist appraised observational studies. Quality assessment included checking if the article’s sample represented the population, data reliability, and analytical rigor. For the selection bias, the study determined if the source under review used random sampling or convenience sampling because either would indicate the effect on the generalizability of the findings (Uttley et al., 2023).

Confounding bias was controlled by checking whether the included studies managed confounding factors such as economic downturns, external environmental regulations, and their possible influence on socioeconomic outcomes (Prill et al., 2021). Poor quality studies were managed by adopting a robust Bayesian hierarchical model to down-weight poor quality studies to correct for biases that emerged from poor studies (Lunn et al., 2013; McGlothlin & Viele, 2018). High-quality studies met all the set parameters and ranked 85-100%, medium-quality studies missed about 1-3 parameters, and poor studies met below half the score. Sensitivity analysis was conducted to ascertain the effect of excluding low-quality studies on the results.

RESULTS AND FINDINGS

The paper presents the findings of the study on environmental effectiveness and carbon taxation strategic adaptation. The results are contained in the descriptive characteristics and statistics, heterogeneity assessment, and subgroup analysis of the included studies.

Descriptive Characteristics

A total of 46 unique studies were included in the analysis in this domain, with 55 observed effect sizes. Out of these studies, regionally, 34 studies focused on Asia (61.8%), 8 focused on Africa (14.5%), 4 focused on Europe (7.3%), 2 studies focused on Global South (3.6%), Latin America, Europe/Asia, OECD, Asia-Pacific, OECD/Global North, and OECD/Global were represented by 1 studies (1.8%). The majority of the studies came from China at 34.5%, followed by Pakistan at 10.9%, South Korea at 7.3%, Central Africa, Kenya, Turkey, Egypt, and 10 ASEAN Countries showed 3.6% with the least from OECD at 1.8%. The publication ranged from 2016 to 2025, with the median publication being 2021. Fixed Effects model and system GMM led in analytical models at 9.1%, Dynamic Panel GMM, FMOLS, and Panel Regression were at 7.3%, ADRL and Time Series ADRL were at 5.5%, Time Series VAR, Panel Threshold Regression, and Interaction Effects tied at 3.6% of the models used in testing environmental effectiveness. The sample sizes of the included studies ranged between 88 and 580, with the majority in the range of 102 and 145.

Descriptive Statistics

The study further conducted descriptive analysis on the included studies to assess the mean, median, and standard deviation. Table 1 presents the results of the test.

Table 1: Descriptive Statistics

The results in Table 1 show that the mean effect (-0.038) is negative, corresponding to emissions reductions in this domain. The median is -0.028 with an interquartile range of 0.022. The sample standard deviation is 0.188, indicating substantial dispersion relative to the central tendency. The observed range spans -0.756 to 0.406, which suggests long tails with potential outliers, likely tied to differences in policy design and exposure. Sign shares are 78.2% negative, 0.0% zero, and 21.8% positive, that is to say, a mix of studies reporting emissions reductions versus those finding emissions increases or do not have any discernible change in the phase of carbon taxation implementation.

Heterogeneity Test

Environmental effectiveness captures the degree to which carbon taxation reduces greenhouse gas emissions. We pool study evidence under random effects and summarize dispersion across contexts. Table 2 presents the results.

Table 2: Pooled Effect Size

From Table 2, across k = 55 effects, the random-effects (RE) mean is μ = −0.038 (SE = 0.010; 95% CI −0.057 to −0.019; z = −3.99; p ≈ 6.5×10⁻⁵). Based on these findings, the negative sign indicates that, on average, carbon taxation is associated with reductions in emissions, which alternatively means the improvements in environmental performance (effectiveness. For comparison, the fixed-effect (FE) mean is μ_FE = −0.022 (95% CI −0.025 to −0.019; p < 1×10⁻¹⁶). The larger magnitude under random effects is consistent with substantial cross-study dispersion, which is further corroborated with RE down-weights, very precise estimates (which cluster nearer zero), and gives relatively more weight to smaller, more negative estimates.

Equally, the Cochran’s Q (54) = 1902.03, p < 0.001; between-study variance τ² = 0.004059, I² = 97.2% which is considerable, and H² = 35.22. The 95% prediction interval (PI) is −0.165 to 0.088, implying that in comparable future settings the true effect could range from moderately negative to near zero or slightly positive. The wide PI as compared to the narrow CI indicates that context and design choices, such as coverage, exemptions, and complementary policy, are meaningfully conditioning the realized environmental outcomes. The average effect is negative and statistically reliable, consistent with emissions reductions under carbon taxation. Yet heterogeneity is very large, and the PI spans values close to zero, indicating that the policy durability designs should emphasize broad coverage, minimal carve-outs, and credible complementary measures to tighten the realized response. Regular performance tracking and closing loopholes, aligning rate ramps with technology deployment, are warranted in jurisdictions sitting near the upper end of the PI.

Subgroup Analysis

The study further conducted subgroup analysis based on the regional dynamics from where the studies were conducted to ascertain the cause of the observed heterogeneity. Table 3 presents the findings of the study.

Table 3: Subgroup Analysis

The subgroup analysis revealed a balance of evidence, being negative. That means most pooled effects are below zero, indicating reductions in the outcome metric on average. The clearest and most generalizable signal comes from Asia (k = 34), where the pooled effect is -0.035 (SE 0.012; 95% CI -0.059, -0.012). Given both the large number of effects and the relatively tight confidence interval, Asia anchors the regional inference as a statistically significant negative result. On the contrary, Africa (k = 8) and Europe (k = 4) are directionally negative but statistically inconclusive, where Africa’s pooled effect is -0.014 (SE 0.011; 95% CI -0.035, 0.007) and Europe’s -0.037 (SE 0.097; 95% CI -0.227, 0.153) includes zero.

This means that with Europe, the results are especially imprecise due to a large standard error. Several single-study or very small-k categories display statistically significant negative estimates for instance, Latin America (k = 1: -0.027; 95% CI -0.048, -0.006), OECD (k = 1: -0.287; 95% CI -0.412, -0.162), Asia-Pacific (k = 1: -0.245; 95% CI -0.386, -0.104), OECD / Global North (k = 1: -0.321; 95% CI -0.444, -0.198), OECD / Global (k = 1: -0.302; 95% CI −0.427, -0.177), and Global (k = 1: -0.142; 95% CI −0.261, -0.023), however, these results should be read as case-specific rather than representative regional averages, because they rely on one underlying study from the global the Global South, which is not significant: 0.045; SE 0.360; 95% CI -0.661, 0.751). The only significantly positive estimate appears in the Europe/Asia combined label (k = 1: 0.270; SE 0.070; 95% CI 0.133, 0.407), which likewise warrants caution as an idiosyncratic, single-study result.

DISCUSSION

Drawing from the findings of the study, multiple quasi-experimental and program evaluations show that credible carbon prices lower emissions. Andersen (2019) found that Sweden’s long-running carbon tax reduced transport CO₂ in causally identified work (with replication), and British Columbia’s revenue-neutral tax lowered emissions by roughly 5–15% within the first years while preserving growth, mirroring our negative pooled effect and wide prediction interval (World Bank, 2022). At the system level, EU ETS evidence demonstrates significant abatement without harming firm performance, reinforcing the idea that coverage breadth and complementary measures condition realized outcomes.

Further, these observations agree with Ali and Kirikkaleli (2023) that carbon taxes impacted environmental pollution negatively, with energy use and economic growth positively influenced by environmental pollution. However, the substantial heterogeneity (I² = 97%) indicates that the magnitude of environmental benefits is highly dependent on the context in which the study is conducted. Thus, countries with stronger regulatory institutions, better enforcement capacity, and robust monitoring frameworks reported larger effects, while weaker institutional environments diminished effectiveness, consistent with the findings of Pudasaini et al. (2024) and Mayol and Porcher (2024). Our subgroup results show regional heterogeneity, which echoes cross-country differences in policy scope, price levels, and exemptions documented in global tracking reports.

CONCLUSION

The pooled evidence shows emissions reductions on average, but with very large heterogeneity and a prediction interval that encompasses near-zero effects in some contexts. This pattern is consistent with the idea that realized abatement depends less on the mere presence of a tax or emissions trading systems and more on coverage breadth, exemption scope, price credibility, and complementary measures, including standards, infrastructure, and innovation policy. However, substantial heterogeneity suggests that enforcement capacity and complementary policies determine the magnitude of environmental effectiveness. Therefore, it was concluded that carbon taxation is a critical policy and strategic management tool to be leveraged by countries to improve the well-being of their environment in the face of climate change’s harmful effects.

 REFERENCES

1. Ali, M., & Kırıkkaleli, D. (2023). Carbon taxes, resource efficiency, and environmental sustainability in a developed country. International Journal of Sustainable Development and World Ecology, 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504509.2023.2296492
2. Andersson, J. J. (2019). Carbon taxes and CO2 emissions: Sweden as a case study. American Economic Journal Economic Policy, 11(4), 1–30. https://doi.org/10.1257/pol.20170144
3. Bashir, M. F., Ma, B., Bilal, N., Komal, B., & Bashir, M. A. (2021). Analysis of environmental taxes publications: a bibliometric and systematic literature review. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 28(16), 20700–20716. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-020-12123-x
4. Bigerna, S., D’Errico, M. C., Micheli, S., & Polinori, P. (2023). Environmental-economic efficiency for carbon neutrality: the role of eco-innovation, taxation, and globalization in OECD countries. Applied Economics, 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1080/00036846.2023.2206634
5. Birkel, H., Veile, J. W., Müller, J. M., Hartmann, E., & Voigt, K. (2019). Development of a risk framework for Industry 4.0 in the context of sustainability for established manufacturers. Sustainability, 11(2), 384. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11020384
6. Braccini, A. M., & Margherita, E. G. (2018). Exploring Organizational Sustainability of Industry 4.0 under the Triple Bottom Line: The Case of a Manufacturing Company. Sustainability, 11(1), 36. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11010036
7. Chen, Z., Su, Y., Wang, X., & Wu, Y. (2020). Does emission discrimination improve environmental effectiveness of emission trading schemes? A duopoly approach. Ekonomska Istraživanja/Ekonomska IstražIvanja, 34(1), 2210–2224. https://doi.org/10.1080/1331677x.2020.1861960
8. Cho, M., & Kim, M. Y. (2024). Effectiveness of simulation-based interventions on empathy enhancement among nursing students: a systematic literature review and meta-analysis. BMC Nursing, 23(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12912-024-01944-7
9. Cumpston, M., Li, T., Page, M. J., Chandler, J., Welch, V. A., Higgins, J. P., & Thomas, J. (2019). Updated guidance for trusted systematic reviews: a new edition of the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. Cochrane Library. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.ed000142
10. Doğan, E., Hodžić, S., & Šikić, T. F. (2022). A way forward in reducing carbon emissions in environmentally friendly countries: the role of green growth and environmental taxes. Ekonomska IstražIvanja, 35(1), 5879–5894. https://doi.org/10.1080/1331677x.2022.2039261
11. Draborg, E., Andreasen, J., Nørgaard, B., Juhl, C. B., Yost, J., Brunnhuber, K., Robinson, K. A., & Lund, H. (2022). Systematic reviews are rarely used to contextualise new results—a systematic review and meta-analysis of meta-research studies. Systematic Reviews, 11(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-022-02062-8
12. Dussaux, D. (2020), “The joint effects of energy prices and carbon taxes on environmental and economic performance: Evidence from the French manufacturing sector”, OECD Environment Working Papers, No. 154, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/b84b1b7d-en.
13. Elkington, J. (1994). Towards the Sustainable Corporation: Win-Win-Win Business Strategies for Sustainable Development. California Management Review, 36(2), 90–100. https://doi.org/10.2307/41165746
14. Fankhauser, S., Bowen, A., Calel, R., Dechezleprêtre, A., Grover, D., Rydge, J., & Sato, M. (2013). Who will win the green race? In search of environmental competitiveness and innovation. Global Environmental Change, 23(5), 902–913. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2013.05.007
15. Farooq, Q., Fu, P., Li, X., & Hao, Y. (2021). Basics of macro to microlevel corporate social responsibility and advancement in triple bottom line theory. Corporate Social-responsibility and Environmental Management, 28(3), 969–979. https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.2069
16. Feindt, S., Kornek, U., Labeaga, J. M., Sterner, T., & Ward, H. (2021). Understanding regressivity: Challenges and opportunities of European carbon pricing. Energy Economics, 103, 105550. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eneco.2021.105550
17. Ghazouani, A., Xia, W., Jebli, M. B., & Shahzad, U. (2020). Exploring the Role of Carbon Taxation Policies on CO2 Emissions: Contextual Evidence from Tax Implementation and Non-Implementation European Countries. Sustainability, 12(20), 8680. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12208680
18. Gimenez, C., Sierra, V., & Rodon, J. (2012). Sustainable operations: Their impact on the triple bottom line. International Journal of Production Economics, 140(1), 149–159. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2012.01.035
19. Guo, R., Liu, S., Liao, T., Xi, F., Zhang, J., Zuo, X., Cao, X., Zhi, F., & Zhang, Y. (2020). Classifying green technologies for sustainable innovation and investment. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 153, 104580. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2019.104580
20. Guo, Z., Zhang, X., Wang, D., & Zhao, X. (2019). The Impacts of an Energy Price Decline Associated with a Carbon Tax on the Energy-Economy-Environment System in China. Emerging Markets Finance & Trade, 55(12), 2689–2702. https://doi.org/10.1080/1540496x.2018.1562899
21. Gusenbauer, M., & Haddaway, N. R. (2019). Which academic search systems are suitable for systematic reviews or meta‐analyses? Evaluating retrieval qualities of Google Scholar, PubMed, and 26 other resources. Research Synthesis Methods, 11(2), 181–217. https://doi.org/10.1002/jrsm.1378
22. Hai-Tao, X., Pan, X., Li, J., Feng, S., & Guo, S. (2023). Comparing the impacts of carbon tax and carbon emission trading, which regulation is more effective? Journal of Environmental Management, 330, 117156. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2022.117156
23. Hansmann, R., Mieg, H. A., & Frischknecht, P. (2012). Principal sustainability components: empirical analysis of synergies between the three pillars of sustainability. International Journal of Sustainable Development and World Ecology, 19(5), 451–459. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504509.2012.696220
24. Hassan, M., Mahmood, Z., Janjua, S., & Asif, N. (2022). Evaluating megaprojects from a sustainability perspective: a case of China-Pakistan economic corridor (CPEC). Journal of Chinese Economic and Foreign Trade Studies, 15(2), 150–170. https://doi.org/10.1108/jcefts-10-2021-0063
25. Huber, R., Wicki, M., & Bernauer, T. (2019). Public support for environmental policy depends on beliefs concerning effectiveness, intrusiveness, and fairness. Environmental Politics, 29(4), 649–673. https://doi.org/10.1080/09644016.2019.1629171
26. Hussain, Z., Khan, M. K., & Xia, Z. (2022). Investigating the role of green transport, environmental taxes and expenditures in mitigating the transport CO2 emissions. Transportation Letters, 15(5), 439–449. https://doi.org/10.1080/19427867.2022.2065592
27. Jansson, T., Malmström, N., Johansson, H., & Choi, H. (2023). Carbon taxes and agriculture: the benefit of a multilateral agreement. Climate Policy, 24(1), 13–25. https://doi.org/10.1080/14693062.2023.2171355
28. Katzav, J. (2023). To what extent can institutional control explain the dominance of analytic philosophy? Asian Journal of Philosophy, 2(2). https://doi.org/10.1007/s44204-023-00099-7
29. Köppl, A., & Schratzenstaller, M. (2022). Carbon taxation: A review of the empirical literature. Journal of Economic Surveys, 37(4), 1353–1388. https://doi.org/10.1111/joes.12531
30. Leining, C., Kerr, S., & Bruce-Brand, B. (2019). The New Zealand Emissions Trading Scheme: critical review and future outlook for three design innovations. Climate Policy, 20(2), 246–264. https://doi.org/10.1080/14693062.2019.1699773
31. Literal, V. J. I., & Guhao, E. S. (2021). Structural Equation model on triple bottom line performance of large manufacturing companies in Region XII, Philippines. In International symposia in economic theory and econometrics (pp. 13–37). https://doi.org/10.1108/s1571-038620210000028002
32. Lorenc, T., Felix, L., Petticrew, M., Melendez-Torres, G. J., Thomas, J., Thomas, S., O’Mara-Eves, A., & Richardson, M. (2016). Meta-analysis, complexity, and heterogeneity: a qualitative interview study of researchers’ methodological values and practices. Systematic Reviews, 5(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-016-0366-6
33. Lozano, R. (2015). A holistic perspective on corporate sustainability drivers. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 22(1), 32–44. https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.1325
34. Lunn, D., Barrett, J., Sweeting, M., & Thompson, S. (2013). Fully Bayesian Hierarchical Modelling in Two Stages, with Application to Meta-Analysis. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series C (Applied Statistics), 62(4), 551–572. https://doi.org/10.1111/rssc.12007
35. Mårtensson, A., Snyder, K., Ingelsson, P., & Bäckström, I. (2023). Understanding long-term thinking as a management strategy to support sustainable quality development: perspectives from education. ˜the TQM Journal, 35(9), 352–368. https://doi.org/10.1108/tqm-03-2023-0072
36. Martin, R., De Preux, L. B., & Wagner, U. J. (2014). The impact of a carbon tax on manufacturing: Evidence from microdata. Journal of Public Economics, 117, 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpubeco.2014.04.016
37. Mattera, M., & Gava, L. (2021). Facing TBL with IoT: creating value and positively impacting business processes. Social Responsibility Journal, 18(1), 178–201. https://doi.org/10.1108/srj-02-2020-0074
38. McShane, B. B., Böckenholt, U., & Hansen, K. T. (2016). Adjusting for publication bias in Meta-Analysis. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 11(5), 730–749. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691616662243
39. Mensah, J. (2019). Sustainable development: Meaning, history, principles, pillars, and implications for human action: Literature review. Cogent Social Sciences, 5(1). https://doi.org/10.1080/23311886.2019.1653531
40. Metcalf, G. E., & Stock, J. H. (2023). The macroeconomic impact of Europe’s carbon taxes. American Economic Journal Macroeconomics, 15(3), 265–286. https://doi.org/10.1257/mac.20210052
41. Miemczyk, J., & Luzzini, D. (2019). Achieving triple-bottom-line sustainability in supply chains. International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 39(2), 238–259. https://doi.org/10.1108/ijopm-06-2017-0334
42. Mitcham, C. (1995). The concept of sustainable development: its origins and ambivalence. Technology in Society, 17, 311–326. doi:10.1016/0160-791X(95)00008-F
43. Page, M. J., McKenzie, J. E., Bossuyt, P. M., Boutron, I., Hoffmann, T. C., Mulrow, C. D., Shamseer, L., Tetzlaff, J. M., Akl, E. A., Brennan, S. E., Chou, R., Glanville, J., Grimshaw, J. M., Hróbjartsson, A., Lalu, M. M., Li, T., Loder, E. W., Mayo-Wilson, E., McDonald, S., . . . Moher, D. (2021). The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ, n71. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n71
44. Pagett, R. (2018). Building global resilience in the aftermath of sustainable development, planet, people, and politics. Macmillan, London, UK.
45. Pahlevansharif, S., Mura, P., & Wijesinghe, S. N. (2019). Qualitative online research in tourism – a systematic review of the literature. Tourism Review, 75(2), 448–465. https://doi.org/10.1108/tr-02-2019-0072
46. Patino, C. M., & Ferreira, J. C. (2018). Inclusion and exclusion criteria in research studies: definitions and why they matter. Jornal Brasileiro De Pneumologia, 44(2), 84. https://doi.org/10.1590/s1806-37562018000000088
47. Pratono, A. H. (2021). Reinterpreting excellence for sustainable competitive advantage: the role of entrepreneurial culture under information technological turbulence. Measuring Business Excellence, 26(2), 180–196. https://doi.org/10.1108/mbe-04-2021-0056
48. Prill, R., Karlsson, J., Ayeni, O. R., & Becker, R. (2021). Author guidelines for conducting systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Knee Surgery Sports Traumatology Arthroscopy, 29(9), 2739–2744. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00167-021-06631-7
49. Pudasaini, K., Rolfe, J., Bhattarai, T. N., & Walsh, K. B. (2024). Comparison of major carbon offset standards for soil carbon projects in Australian grazing lands. Carbon Management (Print), 15(1). https://doi.org/10.1080/17583004.2023.2298725
50. Qiao, K., Feng, Z., Sun, H., Li, H., & Su, P. (2024). The development and experience of international carbon tax policy practice: a mini review. International Journal of Low-Carbon Technologies, 19, 2328–2334. https://doi.org/10.1093/ijlct/ctae178
51. Quynh, H. N., Dung, N. Q., Ngoc, T. P., & Thu, L. N. T. (2023). Impact of the environmental protection tax on household welfare in Vietnam. Cogent Economics & Finance, 11(2). https://doi.org/10.1080/23322039.2023.2267726
52. Riebe, T. (2023). Research design. In Springer eBooks (pp. 31–41). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-41667-6_3
53. Silvestre, B. S., & Țîrcă, D. M. (2019). Innovations for sustainable development: Moving toward a sustainable future. Journal of Cleaner Production, 208, 325–332. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.09.244
54. Skouloudis, A., Evangelinos, K., & Kourmousis, F. (2009). Development of an evaluation methodology for triple bottom line reports using international standards on reporting. Environmental Management, 44(2), 298–311. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-009-9305-9
55. Soku, M. G., Amidu, M., & Coffie, W. (2023). Environmental tax, carbon emissions, and female economic inclusion. Cogent Business & Management, 10(2). https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2023.2210355
56. Stock, G. E. M. &. J. H. (2020). Measuring the macroeconomic impact of carbon taxes. repec.org. https://ideas.repec.org/a/aea/apandp/v110y2020p101-06.html
57. Tian, J., Huang, W., Peng, J., Fu, S., & Wang, J. (2023). How technological innovation influences carbon neutrality? The perspective of spatial spillover effect and attenuation boundary. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 1–28. https://doi.org/10.1080/09640568.2023.2268267
58. Usman, O., & Alola, A. A. (2022). How do environmental taxes influence the effect of tourism on environmental performance? Evidence from EU countries. Current Issues in Tourism, 26(24), 4034–4051. https://doi.org/10.1080/13683500.2022.2157706
59. Uttley, L., Quintana, D. S., Montgomery, P., Carroll, C., Page, M. J., Falzon, L., Sutton, A., & Moher, D. (2023). The problems with systematic reviews: a living systematic review. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 156, 30–41. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2023.01.011
60. Visser, M., Van Eck, N. J., & Waltman, L. (2021). Large-scale comparison of bibliographic data sources: Scopus, Web of Science, Dimensions, Crossref, and Microsoft Academic. Quantitative Science Studies, 2(1), 20–41. https://doi.org/10.1162/qss_a_00112
61. Wilson, D. C. (2023). The philosophy of management today. Philosophy of Management, 22(4), 493–503. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40926-023-00244-5
62. World Bank. 2022. State and Trends of Carbon Pricing 2022. State and Trends of Carbon Pricing;. © World Bank. http://hdl.handle.net/10986/37455  License: CC BY 3.0 IGO
63. Xiao, C., Meng, X., Li, B., & Gao, H. (2023). A systematic review and meta-analysis of pollutants in environmental media. Environmental Science and Pollution Research International, 30(53), 113205–113217. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-023-30347-5
64. Xiaoling, Z. (2018). Theory of Sustainable Development: Concept Evolution, dimension and Prospect. Zhongguo Kexueyuan Yuankan, 33(1), 10–19. https://doi.org/10.16418/j.issn.1000-3045.2018.01.002
65. Yang, T., Yuan, Z., & Chen, X. (2022). Research on China’s fiscal and taxation policy of new energy vehicle industry technological innovation. Ekonomska IstražIvanja, 36(2). https://doi.org/10.1080/1331677x.2022.2108100
66. Yiadom, E. B., Mensah, L., Bokpin, G. A., & Mawutor, J. K. M. (2024). Carbon tax adoption and foreign direct investment: Evidence from Africa. Cogent Economics & Finance, 12(1). https://doi.org/10.1080/23322039.2024.2312783
67. Yiaueki, S. (2023). Pragmatism, expressivism, and inferentialism in the logic of philosophy. In Logic, argumentation & reasoning (pp. 143–185). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-24082-9_5
68. Zhang, W., Zhao, B., Jiang, Y., Nie, Y., Sharp, B., Gu, Y., Xu, S., Zhu, Y., Xing, J., Wang, Y., & He, H. (2022). Co-benefits of regionally differentiated carbon pricing policies across China. Climate Policy, 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1080/14693062.2022.2119198