Author
Listed:
- Usama Awan
- Bård Tronvoll
- Andrew Adewale Alola
Abstract
Greenhouse gas (GHG) emission in the Norwegian manufacturing industry has declined significantly relative to 1990 levels; however, the industry remains the third emitter of GHGs. This implies that achieving “a low‐emission society” target (detailed in the Norwegian Climate Act) depends on sustaining industrial emission mitigation efforts. To advance knowledge on the heterogeneity of GHG emission reduction progress across the country's manufacturing industry, the study examines whether the industry's output and energy structure impact carbon dioxide (CO2) and GHG (excluding CO2) emissions disproportionately both at the industry's aggregate level and subsector levels of the industry. As such, panel‐corrected standard errors (PCSEs) and autoregressive distributed lag (ARDL) approaches are respectively employed for the industry's aggregate level and subsector levels analyses. At the industry's aggregate level: (i) output improves environmental quality by mitigating CO2 emission while showing no significant impact on GHG (excluding CO2) emissions, (ii) the use of oil, natural gas, and electricity energy sources worsens environmental degradation by increasing carbon emission while biofuels exert a desirable environmental effect by mitigating CO2 emission, and (iii) electricity and biofuels sources spur other GHG emissions (excluding CO2) while oil exerts a reverse effect. Meanwhile, at the subsector levels, environmental quality is worsened in each of the 13 manufacturing industries (by oil consumption), 9 subindustries (by natural gas consumption), 8 subindustries (by electricity consumption), and 6 subindustries (by biofuel consumption). However, the energy mix also improves environmental quality in a few subindustries. These results furnish industry practitioners and decision makers with useful policy inference.
Suggested Citation
Usama Awan & Bård Tronvoll & Andrew Adewale Alola, 2026.
"Manufacturing Industries and Footprints: How Energy Structure Determines Environmental Quality,"
Sustainable Development, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 34(4), pages 5267-5284, August.
Handle:
RePEc:wly:sustdv:v:34:y:2026:i:4:p:5267-5284
DOI: 10.1002/sd.70497
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:wly:sustdv:v:34:y:2026:i:4:p:5267-5284. 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: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/journal/10.1002/(ISSN)1099-1719 .
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through
the various RePEc services.