Author
Listed:
- Xuan Liu
(School of Foreign Studies, Shaanxi University of Technology, Hanzhong 723000, China
These authors contributed equally to this work.)
- Min-Jae Lee
(School of Business Administration, Mokwon University, Daejeon 35349, Republic of Korea
These authors contributed equally to this work.)
- Tae-Hoo Kim
(Gangwon Institute, Chuncheon-si 24461, Republic of Korea)
Abstract
This study examines how regulatory heterogeneity in digital services trade relates to the carbon intensity of bilateral trade flows. Using a structural gravity framework estimated with Poisson pseudo maximum likelihood (PPML), we analyzed 10,719 bilateral observations from the Eora Multi-Region Input–Output (MRIO) database over 2014–2020. Bilateral gaps in the OECD Digital Services Trade Restrictiveness Index (DSTRI) were used as the main measure of regulatory heterogeneity, and the overall gap was decomposed into infrastructure-related hard barriers and institutional soft barriers. The results suggest that digital regulatory gaps are associated with a higher carbon intensity in trade while also being associated with lower total embodied emissions through reduced trade volumes. This indicates that lower aggregate emissions under regulatory divergence may reflect contraction in trade activity rather than genuine environmental improvement. The decomposition analysis further suggests that infrastructure-related misalignment is more closely associated with carbon inefficiency, whereas institutional divergence operates mainly through its association with trade volume. In addition, environmental policy stringency in the importing country appears to strengthen the positive association between institutional regulatory gaps and carbon intensity, consistent with the possibility of regulatory overload. The study contributes to the sustainability literature by showing that carbon intensity provides a more informative indicator of sustainable trade performance than aggregate emissions alone in fragmented regulatory environments. It also suggests that digital governance, trade policy, and environmental policy should be considered together in promoting more sustainable forms of international trade, particularly in the context of emerging policy frameworks such as WTO digital trade negotiations, OECD digital governance initiatives, and carbon border adjustment mechanisms (CBAMs).
Suggested Citation
Download full text from publisher
Corrections
All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:18:y:2026:i:8:p:4031-:d:1923063. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through
the various RePEc services.