Impact of Green Technology Innovation On Green Eco

sustainability
Article
Impact of Green Technology Innovation on Green Economy:
Evidence from China
Chenggang Wang 1,2 , Danli Du 1 , Tiansen Liu 1, *, Yue Zhu 2 , Dongxue Yang 2 , Yuan Huang 2 and Fan Meng 2
1 School of Economics and Management, Harbin Engineering University, Harbin 150006, China;
[email protected] (C.W.); [email protected] (D.D.)
2 School of Economics and Business Administration, Heilongjiang University, Harbin 150001, China;
[email protected] (Y.Z.); [email protected] (D.Y.); [email protected] (Y.H.);
[email protected] (F.M.)
* Correspondence: [email protected]; Tel.: +86-13845105537
Abstract: The impact of green technology innovation and the digital economy on the sustainability of
the green economy is increasing. To delve deeper into this subject, this paper utilizes fixed- effect
models and threshold effect models. It examines data from 34 provincial administrative regions
of China. The aim is to uncover the patterns of influence the green technology innovation and the
digital economy have on the sustainability of the green economy. The research findings are as follows:
(1) The green technology innovation, digital economy, and their interaction contribute to promoting
the high-quality sustainability of the green economy. The sustainability of the green economy relies on
the support of green technology innovation and the digital economy. By optimizing the capabilities
of green technology innovation and the level of digital economy, managers could enhance the high-
quality sustainability of the green economy. (2) The digital economy exhibits a dual threshold effect
in driving the sustainability of the green economy through green technology innovation. When the
digital economy surpasses the first threshold, the influence of green technology innovation on the
green economy experiences a notable increase. However, once the digital economy surpasses the
second threshold, the impact of green technology innovation on the green economy begins to diminish
significantly. (3) There are notable regional variations in the impact of green technology innovation
and digital economy on the sustainability of the green economy across different regions of China.
Citation: Wang, C.; Du, D.; Liu, T.;
Considering these findings, it is vital for stakeholders in China to implement customized measures.
Zhu, Y.; Yang, D.; Huang, Y.; Meng, F.
These measures should aim to actively promote the sustainability of China’s green economy. The
Impact of Green Technology
Innovation on Green Economy:
relevant stakeholders include businesses and the government.
Evidence from China. Sustainability
2024, 16, 8557. https://doi.org/ Keywords: green technology innovation; digital economy; green economy; high-quality sustainability
10.3390/su16198557
Academic Editor: Rajesh

Kumar Jyothi
1. Introduction
Received: 3 September 2024 In the report of the 20th National Congress of the Communist Party of China, it is
Revised: 27 September 2024 proposed that China should expedite the sustainability of the digital economy. China also
Accepted: 30 September 2024 should foster the profound integration of the digital economy with the real economy and
Published: 2 October 2024
advance the growth of the green economy. At the same time, the sustainability of the green
economy and digital economy has emerged as a crucial aspect of China’s ongoing economic
progress. Digital economy refers to the economic form based on digital technology and
Copyright: © 2024 by the authors.
information technology. It is an economic form that promotes economic development,
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. transformation, and upgrading through digital, networked and intelligent means [1]. Con-
This article is an open access article sequently, scholars have shifted their focus toward studying green technology innovation,
distributed under the terms and the digital economy, and the green economy within this framework. Data released by
conditions of the Creative Commons the Chinese Academy of Information and Communications Technology reveal that the
Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// cumulative value added by the digital economy reached a staggering 38.1 trillion US dollars
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ in 2021 [2]. This value represents 47 prominent nations worldwide and accounts for a
4.0/). noteworthy 45% of their respective GDP. Among them, China’s digital economy reached
Sustainability 2024, 16, 8557. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16198557 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability

Sustainability 2024, 16, 8557 2 of 23
a staggering 7.1 trillion US dollars, representing over 18% of the total across 47 countries
and ranking as the world’s second-largest [3]. At present, the progress of China’s digi-
tal economy is advancing rapidly, demonstrating a broad scope of impact and profound
influence. It has bestowed upon economic and social development a plethora of “novel
catalysts and newfound benefits”, ushering in a transforming era. Additionally, amidst
the backdrop of the imperative goals of “carbon peaking” and “carbon neutrality”, it is
crucial to further enhance the overall magnitude of green technology innovation in China.
Simultaneously, assuring the sustainability of the green economy remains a paramount
focus within China’s prospective economic advancement. However, China’s green econ-
omy is still in its nascent stage, prompting an increasing number of scholars to delve into
the study of its sustainability. Furthermore, the emergence of new challenges is gradually
surfacing, warranting attention.
Additionally, the relationship between the digital economy, green technology innova-
tion, and the green economy has still not been studied systematically. The relevant research
lacks a certain depth. However, there are relatively many scholars studying the digital
economy. However, there is not much literature on combining the digital economy and the
green economy. In particular, there are fewer scholars who have studied the relationship
between the digital economy and the green economy in different regions [4]. To address
these challenges comprehensively, this paper will employ empirical techniques such as the
fixed effect model and the threshold effect model. By leveraging data from 34 provincial
administrative regions of China, the authors aim to offer valuable insights that could serve
as a significant reference for advancing the sustainability of the green economy within
the country.
The objectives of this paper are as follows: (1) The primary objective of this paper is to
investigate the direct correlation between green technology innovation, the digital economy,
and the green economy. The intricate relationship among green technology innovation,
digital economy, and green economy necessitates an in-depth examination using relevant
data. By doing so, this paper seeks to elucidate the underlying direct impacts of these factors,
presenting crucial insights for decision-makers in devising effective management strategies.
(2) This paper will unveil the patterns of green technology innovation influence on the
green economy, taking into account the dual threshold effect model. With varying threshold
levels, the interplay between variables could exhibit notable distinctions. Thus, this paper
endeavors to investigate the distinct characteristics of green technology innovation impact
on the green economy within the framework of different threshold levels of the digital
economy. (3) Our objective is also to unveil the dynamic interplay among green technology
innovation, the digital economy, and the green economy across diverse regions. Given
China’s expansive geographical expanse, digital economy, the capacity of green technology
innovation, and the sustainability of the green economy could exhibit considerable regional
disparities. This paper will systematically illuminate the intricate connections among these
three factors within varying regional contexts.
The marginal contribution of this paper is as follows: (1) This paper extends the scope
of research on green economy by incorporating digital economy variables into both the
theoretical and empirical models. Thus, it investigates the impact of the digital economy
on green technology innovation. Previous studies have seldom included this variable,
making it an important contribution in broadening the research object of green economy [5].
(2) The research content of green economy has been enriched. The investigation focuses
on examining the moderating effect of the digital economy on the relationship between
green technology innovation and the green economy [6]. Additionally, the authors take
into account several additional control variables, such as the level of marketization, the
industrial composition, and the human capital magnitude. As a result, it further enhances
the breadth of relevant research on the green economy [7]. (3) The application range of
empirical analysis methods, such as the threshold model, is expanded. Previous studies
have rarely employed the fixed effect model and the threshold effect model to investigate
similar issues [8,9]. Thus, the authors serve to broaden the scope of application for these
empirical research methods. (4) This paper introduces innovative management recom-
mendations aimed at fostering the long-term viability of China’s green economy. These
suggestions offer valuable insights and serve as crucial guidance for effectively advancing
the sustainability of the green economy in China [10,11].
The subsequent research arrangements for this study are as follows: (1) Literature
review: this section primarily encompasses a comprehensive synthesis of the scholarly
literature in relevant domains, including the correlation between the digital economy
and the green economy, the interplay between the digital economy and the sustainabil-
ity of the green economy, and the association between green technology innovation and
the sustainability of the green economy; (2) research hypothesis: this section primarily
formulates the conjectured correlation among green technology innovation, the digital
economy, and the green economy, and moreover, this paper constructs the conceptual
framework; (3) methodology: this section encompasses the development of an empirical
model, selection of variables and indices, sample selection and data acquisition, as well as
multi-correlation analysis; (4) results: this section comprises the initial regression outcomes,
analysis of threshold effects, robustness testing, and additional analyses; and (5) conclu-
sions, policy implications, limitations, and future research directions: this portion primarily
encompasses the conclusions of the study, policy implications, research limitations, and
future research directions.
2. Literature Review
2.1. Relationship between the Digital Economy and Green Economy
Some researchers have established that there exists an intricate and dynamic correla-
tion between the digital economy and the green economy [12]. The digital economy plays a
significant role in fostering the sustainability of digital industrialization and the digitization
of various industries by gauging the magnitude of the digital economy. By facilitating the
profound amalgamation of digital technology with sectors, the digital economy enables
the deep integration of these industries. Consequently, the sustainability of the digital
economy contributes to the overall sustainability of various sectors [13]. In contrast, the
green economy represents a novel economic paradigm with a market-oriented approach. It
is rooted in the foundations of the traditional industrial economy and is dedicated to achiev-
ing a harmonious balance between economy and environment. It embodies a sustainable
state that emerges from the industrial economy, catering to the imperative requirements of
environmental preservation and human well-being [14]. Consequently, the sustainability
of the green economy relies on the bolstering of advanced and emerging technologies,
particularly in the realm of green technology innovation. However, the digital economy
plays a vital role in providing a crucial technological foundation [15]. In this context, a
multifaceted and dynamic interconnection emerges between the digital economy and the
green economy, forming a complex relationship of mutual influence and dependence.
Moreover, the sustainability of the digital economy serves as a significant assurance
for the sustainability of the green economy across various dimensions. The digital economy
plays a pivotal role in providing crucial information technology support for the ongoing
sustainability efforts of the green economy. The sustainability of the digital economy
actively accelerates the pace of the sustainability of green economy endeavors, fostering
a synergistic advancement towards shared environmental and economic goals [16]. The
digital economy possesses the capability to enhance the efficient allocation of diverse
societal resources. Thus, when considering the elements and resource allocation of the
green economy, the digital economy plays a pivotal role in effectively optimizing the
various resources essential for the green economy [17]. By successfully optimizing the
myriad resources involved in the sustainability of the green economy, a positive impetus is
generated, fueling the sustainability of the green economy itself [18]. Moreover, given the
dynamic nature of the digital economy, the sustainability of the green economy undergoes
significant transformations. This interconnectedness remains dynamic and enduring. It
is necessary to explore the complex processes by which the digital economy affects the
sustainability of the green economy [19].
2.2. The Relationship between Green Technology Innovation and Green Economy
The green technology innovation holds the potential to offer crucial technical support
to bolster the green economy [20]. Green technology innovation constitutes a form of
technological innovation that adheres to ecological principles and the laws of ecological
economics [21]. The innovative endeavors within green technology are aimed at con-
serving resources and energy while preventing, mitigating, or minimizing pollution and
ecological damage [22]. Green technology innovation encompasses a broad spectrum of
“pollution-free” or “pollution-less” technologies and products that strive to minimize ad-
verse ecological impacts [23]. Furthermore, the process of the green economy necessitates
substantial investment in a myriad of technical components [13]. It arises primarily due
to the paramount focus on the sustainability of the green industry in a green economy.
The green industry primarily entails the active utilization of clean production technologies
and the adoption of new processes and technologies that are harmless or minimally harm-
ful [24]. Simultaneously, the green industry places greater emphasis on robustly reducing
the consumption of raw materials and energy. It aims to accomplish production objectives
with minimal pollution [25]. Furthermore, within the domain of green economy, green
industry also underscores the utmost elimination of environmental pollutants throughout
the production process [26]. Therefore, the implementation of green technology innovation
has emerged as a pivotal technical assurance for the sustainability of the green economy.
Only through the efficacious dissemination of green technology innovation could the green
economy be robustly advanced [27].
Moreover, green technology innovation has evolved into one of the fundamental
pillars of the sustainability of the green economy [28]. Derived from the sustainability prac-
tices observed in developed nations, the pursuit of the sustainability of a green economy
necessitates elevated expectations for green technology innovation endeavors. Simultane-
ously, green technology innovation assumes a pivotal role in propelling the advancement
of the sustainability of the green economy [29]. Hence, in delving into the realm of the
sustainability of the green economy, it becomes imperative to delve into the pivotal role
played by green technology innovation practices. Furthermore, it is equally essential to
examine the intricate interplay between green technology innovation and green economy,
unraveling their interconnected [30].
2.3. The Role of the Digital Economy in the Relationship between Green Technology Innovation and
Green Economy
Within the realm of the green technology innovation influence on the sustainability
of the green economy, noteworthy research by Kozera (2024) highlights the significant
regulatory role played by the digital economy [31]. In the intricate interplay between green
technology innovation and green economy, various factors wield a substantial impact
on their interrelationship. These factors encompass the digital economy, governmental
administration, environmental regulations, social customs, human resources, capital, and
more. Moreover, as China’s digital economy continues to expand its reach, the pronounced
influence of the digital economy on this intricate association is aptly underscored [32].
This phenomenon primarily stems from the multifaceted regulatory capabilities of the
digital economy, which enable it to oversee the impact of green technology innovation on
the sustainability of the green economy comprehensively. Through the aid of the digital
industry, the digital economy adeptly maneuvers to dynamically readjust the intricate
dynamics between them [33]. Moreover, the digital economy exerts its regulatory prowess
over the impact of green technology innovation on the sustainability of the green economy
across various domains, including technology, capital, manpower, and information [34].
Furthermore, the transformation of digital economy composition plays a pivotal role in
shaping the magnitude and trajectory of the green technology innovation influence on
the sustainability of the green economy [35]. Accordingly, a systematic investigation

must be undertaken in conjunction with the digital economy to examine the influence of
green technology innovation on the green economy. This integrated approach enables a
comprehensive study to explore the effects and implications of green technology innovation
in the realm of the green economy [36]. By elucidating the underlying principles governing
the digital economy, the promotion of the sustainability of the green economy could be
significantly enhanced through the aid of green technology innovation [37]. In summary,
delving into the role of the digital economy within the nexus of the two aspects is imperative
in order to optimize the dynamics at play [38–40].
2.4. Research Gaps

The research findings of the pertinent literature reveal that several scholars have
explored the interconnection among the digital economy, green technology innovation,
and green economy. However, there are still some deficiencies as follows: (1) Scanty
research focusing on the sustainability of the digital economy and green economy in China
has been conducted thus far. The majority of scholars have predominantly examined
the sustainability of the digital economy and green economy at a localized level, with a
dearth of comprehensive and systematic studies on the matter. (2) The majority of scholarly
research is predominantly approached from a theoretical standpoint, thereby lacking ample
empirical analysis. Furthermore, some of the literature suffers from limited sample sizes,
which compromises their persuasiveness and undermines the strength of their findings.
(3) In the realm of investigating the impact of green technology innovation on the green
economy, some scholars have integrated the examination of the digital economy within
this context. This reveals a certain unbalanced perspective in the research regarding these
interrelated issues.
To bridge the void in scholarly research, this paper has taken the initiative to define
the research title and the contents. The aim is not only to enhance the existing theoretical
research but also to furnish a significant point of reference in advancing the sustainability
of China’s green economy.
3. Research Hypothesis
3.1. The Influence of Green Technology Innovation on the Sustainability of Green Economy
The improvement of green technology innovation capacity helps to promote the
sustainability of the green economy [41]. The concept of green technology innovation
includes green technology and product innovation, with special emphasis on the green
progress made by enterprises in production technology. For example, in the production
process, enterprises strive to reduce the consumption of non-renewable resources and
reduce the emission of pollutants [42]. Furthermore, in some cases, they would achieve
the ambitious goal of “zero emissions”. Improving the green technology innovation
capacity is the key to accelerating the sustainable development of a green economy. This is
mainly because the improvement of green technology innovation capacity could improve
the efficiency of green economic development and reduce the cost of green economic
development [43]. However, when the green technology innovation capacity of enterprises
declines, the pace of sustainable development of the green economy will inevitably be
hindered. This is mainly because the development of the green economy would be limited
by the level of green technology [44]. In addition, green product innovation mainly involves
the production of equipment and products produced by enterprises, which must strictly
comply with environment-friendly standards. Improving the innovation capacity of these
green products plays an important role in promoting the sustainability of the green economy.
If the innovation capacity of green products weakens, the long-term sustainability of
enterprises with environmental awareness will be limited [45]. Based on the above analysis,
this paper proposes the following research hypotheses:
Hypothesis 1 (H1). Green technology innovation shows a positive impact on the sustainable
development of the green economy through green process innovation and green product innovation.
3.2. The Influence of Digital Economy on Green Economy

The sustainability of the digital economy shows a positive impact on the sustainability
of the green economy [46]. The digital economy includes the digital industrialization,
the industrial digitization, and the digital industrial infrastructure [47]. The positive
development trajectory is pursued by them. It promotes the sustainable development of the
green economy. This is mainly because the digital economy could enrich the means of green
economic development and form a benign interaction with the green economy [48]. On the
contrary, the negative process reflected by digital industrialization, industrial digitization,
and digital industrial infrastructure would lead to a negative trajectory of green economic
sustainability [49]. It shows that when the digital economy is unfavorable, the green
economy would not show a better development. In a world where the pace of the digital
economy slows down, the pace of the green economy will slow down [50]. Conversely,
when the sustainable development momentum of the green economy accelerates, the
sustainable development momentum of the green economy will also accelerate [51]. Based
on the above analysis, this paper proposes the following research hypotheses:
Hypothesis 2 (H2). The digital economy shows a positive impact on the sustainability of the green
economy.
3.3. The Digital Economy Regulates the Impact of Green Technology Innovation on the
Sustainability of Green Economy
The digital economy could effectively regulate the impact of green technology inno-
vation on the sustainability of the green economy. In the process of the impact of green
technology innovation on the sustainability of the green economy, it is worth noting that
the digital economy plays a crucial role in regulating [52]. On the one hand, the digital
economy provides many important platforms for innovation. The digital economy could
provide enterprises with knowledge-intensive technology and innovation resources, thus
promoting the sustainability of the organization [53]. At the same time, the digital economy
shows a strong green technology innovation ability, which could effectively support the
sustainability of the green economy by improving the innovation ability of green tech-
nology [54]. From another perspective, the digital economy could also provide a rich
means of innovation. The sustainability of the digital economy could promote the effective
integration of social resources, including advanced communication technology, the digital
management platform of production factors, and skilled human resources [55]. By optimiz-
ing the allocation of resources, the digital economy could strengthen the promotion effect
of green technology innovation on the green economy and further amplify its positive
effect [56]. It could be seen that the digital economy shows the ability to effectively regulate
the impact of green technology innovation on the sustainability of the green economy.
Based on the above analysis, this paper proposes the following research hypotheses:
Hypothesis 3 (H3). In the process of green technology innovation influencing the green economy,
the regulatory role of the digital economy exhibits certain fluctuations. In the initial stages, the
regulatory role of the digital economy is relatively small. As the digital economy develops to a
certain level, its positive regulatory effect significantly increases. However, when the digital economy
reaches a higher level, its positive regulatory effect may diminish.
Drawing upon the aforementioned analysis, the present study constructs a theoretical
model, which is depicted in Figure 1. This figure illustrates the interplay between the
three variables of digital economy, green technology innovation, and green economy.
Additionally, it elucidates the hypothesis content explored in this paper. The establishment
of this theoretical model serves as a crucial theoretical groundwork for the subsequent
empirical investigation.
three variables of digital economy, green technology innovation, and green economy. Ad-
ditionally, it elucidates the hypothesis content explored in this paper. The establishment
Sustainability 2024, 16, 8557 of this theoretical model serves as a crucial theoretical groundwork for the subsequent
7 of 23
empirical investigation.
The theoretical
Figure 1. The theoretical model of this paper.
4. Methodology
4. Methodology
4.1. Construction of Empirical Model
4.1. Construction of Empirical Model
Construction of Benchmark Regression Model
Construction of Benchmark Regression Model
The authors want to investigate the intricate connections among green technology
The authors
innovation (GTI), want
digitaltoeconomy
investigate the and
(DLE), intricate
greenconnections among
economy (GED). green
Thus, technology
this paper for-
innovation
mulates the (GTI), digital
subsequent economymodel,
regression (DLE),drawing
and green
uponeconomy (GED).
the research Thus,
findings of this paper
prominent
formulates the subsequent regression model, drawing upon the research findings of
scholars [57]:
prominent scholars [57]:LnGEDit = α0 + α1 LnDLEit + α2 LnGTIit + εit (1)
Among them, lnGED LnGED = α the
represents + αsustainability
LnDLE + α level
LnGTIof +
theε green economy. lnGTI
(1)
represents the level of green technology innovation. lnDLE represents the sustainability
Among them, lnGED represents the sustainability level of the green economy. lnGTI
level of the digital economy. εit is the residual term.
represents the level of green technology innovation. lnDLE represents the sustainability
To mitigate potential biases arising from omitted variables during the estimation
level of the digital economy. εit is the residual term.
procedure [58], the fresh regression Model (2) is established, building upon the foundation
To mitigate potential biases arising from omitted variables during the estimation pro-
of Model (1). Furthermore, pertinent control variables, which have the potential to influence
cedure [58], the fresh regression Model (2) is established, building upon the foundation of
the sustainability of the green economy, are incorporated into the regression Model (2). The
Model (1). Furthermore, pertinent control variables, which have the potential to influence
structure of Model (2) is depicted as follows:
the sustainability of the green economy, are incorporated into the regression Model (2).
The structure of LnGED
Model (2) is depicted as follows:
it = α0 + α1 LnDLEit + α2 LnGTIit + β LnNit + εit (2)
i
LnGED = α + α LnDLE + α LnGTI + β LnN + ε (2)
Among them, Nit represents the control variable that shows an impact on the sustain-
Among
ability of the them,
green N it represents the control variable that shows an impact on the sustain-
economy.
ability
Toofdelve
the green
deeper economy.
into the intricate interplay between green technology innovation and
digital
Toeconomy and its
delve deeper intoprofound implications
the intricate interplayfor the sustainability
between of green
green technology economy, and
innovation this
paper presents
digital economythe andadditional regression
its profound Modelfor
implications (3).the
This model is specifically
sustainability designed
of green economy,
to unveil
this paperthe effects of
presents thethe interactive
additional terms of the
regression digital
Model (3).economy andisgreen
This model technology
specifically de-
innovation on the sustainability of the green economy. The formulation of Model
signed to unveil the effects of the interactive terms of the digital economy and green tech- (3) is
as follows:
nology innovation on the sustainability of the green economy. The formulation of Model
(3) is as follows:
LnGEDit = α0 + α1 LnGTIit + α2 (LnGTIit × LnDLEit ) + βi LnNit + εit (3)
LnGED = α + α LnGTI + α (LnGTI × LnDLE ) + β LnN + ε (3)
4.2. Panel Threshold Regression Model Construction
In light
4.2. Panel of the evolving
Threshold Regressionsustainability dynamics of the digital economy, it is plausible
Model Construction
that the impact of green technology innovation on the sustainability level of the green
In light of the evolving sustainability dynamics of the digital economy, it is plausible
economy exhibits a nonlinear pattern [59]. To shed light on this notion, this paper has
that the impact of green technology innovation on the sustainability level of the green
developed the additional panel threshold regression Model (4). It is specifically tailored
economy exhibits a nonlinear pattern [59]. To shed light on this notion, this paper has
to uncover the threshold effect of green technology innovation on the sustainability of the
developed
green economythe additional panel threshold
[60]. The formulation regression
of Model Model (4).below:
(4) is presented It is specifically tailored
LnGEDit = α0 + α1 Lngiit × I(Lndfit ≤ c) + α2 Lngiit × I(Lndfit > c) + βi LnNit + εit (4)

In Model (4), I(·) represents the indicator function, and c is the threshold value. The
median threshold value in this research model corresponds to the sustainability level of the
digital economy.
The random effects model and fixed effects model commonly used in panel data
analysis have their own strengths and weaknesses. The random effects model could handle
heterogeneity and correlation in panel data, providing efficient estimation. However, it
overlooks individual fixed effects and endogeneity issues. In contrast, the fixed effects
model could capture individual-specific fixed differences and effectively control hetero-
geneity and endogeneity. Furthermore, it is simple and easy to interpret. The reason for
choosing the fixed effects model in this paper is to focus on studying individual fixed
differences. The authors also aim to control endogeneity issues and simplify the model
for better interpretability. Therefore, the fixed effects model is suitable for the research in
this paper.
4.3. Variable Index Selection

4.3.1. Explained Variable
The level of green economy encompasses the sustainable aspects of both human society
and the industrial sectors associated with production [61]. Additionally, it encompasses
the natural environment in which humanity resides, commonly referred to as the “green
environment”. To comprehensively evaluate the sustainability level of the green economy,
this paper devises an evaluation index system that consists of 3 key dimensions: green
society, green industry, and green environment (as depicted in Table 1). To measure the
sustainability level of the green economy, this paper employs the widely acknowledged
method of principal component analysis, which is highly regarded within academic circles.
Table 1. Evaluation index system of the sustainability of green economy level.
Index Items Attribute Reference

Scale of CO2 emissions per capita Negative
Scale of ammonia nitride emissions per capita Negative Olvera (2011) [62],
Green society
Scale of per capita nitrogen oxide emissions Negative Rebeck (2014) [63]
Fertilizer application amount per unit cultivated area Negative
Annual wastewater discharge Negative
Annual solid waste emissions Negative
Helberger (2022) [64],
Green industry Annual industrial emissions Negative
Salmon (2022) [65]
Annual farmland irrigation water consumption Negative
Annual non-renewable energy consumption Negative
Concentration of CO2 in the air Positive
Concentration of NO2 in the air Negative
Concentration of SO2 in the air Negative Worthington (2005) [66],
Green environment
Water quality up to standard rate Negative Marudhamuthu (2011) [67]
Urban green space coverage Negative

Average urban environmental noise Positive
4.3.2. Explanatory Variables

(a) The digital economy: Currently, there exists a certain degree of scholarly debate
surrounding the methods for measuring the digital economy. Hence, a standardized
measurement approach for the digital economy remains elusive [68]. This paper,
drawing upon the research findings of esteemed scholars in the field, adopts a mea-
surement method that enjoys significant recognition. Specifically, the authors utilize
the digital industrialization index, industrial digitization index, and digital industrial
infrastructure index as specific indicators to gauge the digital economy. Additionally,
by referring to the relevant literature, the authors select 14 specific indicators that
are detailed in Table 2. The selected specific indicators are derived from statistical
yearbooks released by various provinces of China.
(b) The green technology innovation: Currently, a majority of scholars consider the
quantity of patent applications in each region as a crucial metric for assessing local
technological innovation [69]. Therefore, in formulating a measure for green tech-
nology innovation, this paper utilizes the yearly count of patent applications related
to green technologies in each province. The pertinent data are sourced from patent
application reports issued by the science and technology bureaus of various provinces
of China [70].
Table 2. The evaluation index system of the digital economy.
Index Items Attribute Reference

Annual output value of the digital information industry Positive
The proportion of the total value of the digital information
Positive
industry to the fixed assets of the whole society
Digital industrialization Sterev (2022) [71],
(DDN) The proportion of employment in the digital information Helberger (2022) [64]
Positive
industry to the total population
The proportion of the annual output value of the digital
Positive
information industry to the total value of the tertiary industry
Transaction volume of e-commerce platform Positive
Mobile payment penetration Positive
Industrial digitization Number of industrial Internet platforms Positive Chen (2021) [72],
(IDN) Dunne (2022) [73]
Numerical control rate of the core process of industrial firms Positive
Agricultural internet coverage Positive
The proportion of annual industrial digital output to GDP Positive
Number of internet mobile base stations Positive
Digital industrial Number of broadband internet access ports Positive

Petersen (2022) [74]
infrastructure (DII) Internet domain name number Positive
Smart phone penetration Positive
4.3.3. Control Variable

To mitigate the issue of endogeneity [75], the authors accounted for other variables that
possess significant influence. These control variables comprise the following: (a) A level
of marketization (MTE); the authors employ the ratio of total market investment to total
social investment in fixed assets as a proxy for this indicator; (b) industrial composition
(SIS); given the inclusion of the digital economy and green technology within the service
industry, the authors adopt the ratio of the tertiary industry to provincial GDP as a measure
of industrial structure; (c) human capital magnitude (HML); to capture the presence of
highly skilled human resources, the authors utilize the proportion of individuals with a
college degree or higher in the local population as an index; (d) external openness (OE);
drawing upon principles from international economic theory, the authors employ the total
amount of foreign direct investment in China as a representation of this indicator.
Based on the above analysis, this paper summaries all the core variable information
involved. As shown in Table 3, the relevant variables have corresponding measurement
indicators. At the same time, all indicators have corresponding data sources. The deter-
mination of these indicators provides an important foundation for subsequent research.
The relevant data sources are all from Chinese government agencies. Therefore, these data
are reliable.
Table 3. Relevant variables, indicators and data sources of this study.
Variables Index Data Source

Green society
Explained Ministry of Industry and Information
Green economy Green industry
variable Technology of China
Green environment
Digital industrialization
Statistical yearbooks released by
Digital economy Industrial digitization
Explanatory various provinces of China
variables Digital industrial infrastructure
Yearly count of patent applications related to green The science and technological bureaus
Green technology innovation
technologies of various provinces of China
The ratio of total market investment to total social
Level of marketization Ministry of Commerce of China
investment in fixed assets
Control Industrial composition The ratio of the tertiary industry to provincial GDP National Bureau of Statistics of China
variables The proportion of individuals with a college degree or
Human capital magnitude National Bureau of Statistics of China
higher in the local population
External openness Total amount of foreign direct investment in China Ministry of Commerce of China
4.4. Data and Method

By utilizing panel data that encompasses 34 provincial administrative regions of China
from 2007 to 2021, a comprehensive and in-depth analysis of the research topic becomes
attainable. The authors chose data from 2007 to 2021. During this period, China experienced
significant changes in the development of its digital economy and green economy. The
reason for not studying data from 2024 is that many indicators for that year have not been
officially released yet. We are unable to comprehensively obtain relevant data for 2024.
However, data for the relevant indicators from 2007 to 2021 are all available. Furthermore,
the authors study data from 34 provincial-level administrative regions because China
consists of 23 provinces, 5 autonomous regions, 4 municipalities directly under the central
government, and 2 special administrative regions, totaling 34 regions. These 34 provincial-
level administrative regions could represent the overall development situation of China.
Therefore, we choose to study data from these 34 regions.
In terms of data selection, this paper chooses the data from the past 15 years as it
represents the most up-to-date and relevant information available. Previous scholars have
conducted limited research on this specific time period [28]. Moreover, by analyzing the
latest data, the authors provide a more accurate reflection of the current situation. Thus, it
leads to scientifically and precisely derived research conclusions.
Panel data, in this context, pertains to a dataset consisting of observations on multiple
entities (in this case, the provincial administrative regions) in a specific time period. This
approach offers several notable advantages for empirical analysis and significantly bolsters
the generalization of the research findings. Furthermore, it is worth noting that the selected
samples for this research fully meet the fundamental criteria of panel data. These chosen
research subjects possess robust representative, ensuring the validity and reliability of
the findings.
To derive data pertaining to digital industrialization in the digital economy, the au-
thors sourced information primarily from the World Input-Output Database. These data
concern industrial digitization, digital industrial infrastructure, and the sustainability of the
green economy level. The authors primarily rely on data published in the China Statistical
Yearbook, China Environmental Statistical Yearbook, provincial statistical yearbooks, and
governmental websites throughout the years. Additionally, data regarding green technol-
ogy innovation primarily originated from official reports and data published by provincial
science and technology bureaus. It is worth noting that certain provinces or years may
have experienced data omissions. In such cases, the authors employ the mean method to
fill in the missing data, ensuring the continuity and coherence of the study.
In terms of research methodology, this paper primarily employed the following re-
search methods: multi-correlations test, baseline regression, fixed effect models, threshold
effect analysis, robustness test, and heterogeneity analysis. The reason for choosing these
methods is that most scholars in the field have used them to investigate similar issues [13].
These methods are well-suited for studying the relationship between digital economy, green
technological innovation, and green economy. Additionally, utilizing these methods allows
for a comprehensive and in-depth examination of the aforementioned topics.
4.5. Multi-Correlations Test

To ascertain the interrelationships between variables, this paper employs the Pearson
product-moment correlation analysis to examine the correlation among the variables. The
primary focus of the analysis is on the interrelationships between green economy, digital
economy, and green technology innovation variables. The results of the correlation analysis
are presented in Table 4.
Table 4. The results of the correlation analysis.
GED DLE GTI

0.49 * 0.33 **
GED 1
(0.04) (0.07)
0.49 * 0.30 ***
DLE 1
(0.04) (0.01)
0.33 ** 0.30 ***
GTI 1
(0.07) (0.01)
Note: N = 6631; * indicates p < 0.05; ** indicates p < 0.01; *** indicates p < 0.001.
Based on the data from Table 4, it can be observed that the authors primarily con-
ducted 2-tailed Pearson tests to examine the relationships between variables. Despite the
presence of some correlation among green economy, digital economy, and green technology
innovation variables, the correlation coefficients are relatively small, all being less than 0.5.
According to the standards set by most scholars, a correlation coefficient below 0.8 indicates
the absence of multi-correlations among variables. Hence, in the present study, there is
no issue of multi-correlations among the variables. In other words, there is no substantial
correlation between the variables, allowing for further investigation in subsequent studies.
5. Results
5.1. Baseline Regression Result
Table 5 presents the empirical analysis results of the baseline regression conducted.
The baseline regression test results in Table 5 indicate that the fixed effect model used
demonstrates favorable application effects. Model (1) depicts the regression outcome
regarding the impact of green technology innovation and digital economy on the sustain-
ability level of green economy without considering control variables. On the other hand,
Model (2) represents the regression outcome with the inclusion of control variables to
examine the influence of green technology innovation and the digital economy on the
sustainability level of the green economy. Upon observing the regression coefficients in the
table, it is evident that both green technology innovation and the digital economy show
positive and statistically significant effects on the sustainability level of the green economy.
The findings further indicate that both green technology innovation and digital economy
exert a positive promoting influence on the sustainability of the green economy. Therefore,
both hypothesis 1 and hypothesis 2 are supported by the results.
Table 5. Empirical analysis results of baseline regression.
Variables (1) (2) (3) (4)

0.10 ** 0.27 **
LnDLE
(11.36) (19.20)
0.01 ** 0.028 ** −0.01 0.00
LnGTI
(2.33) (3.65) (−0.27) (0.41)
0.04 ** 0.02 **
LnDLE × LnGTI
(7.39) (3.44)
−0.47 ** −0.29 **
LnSIS
(−3.29) (−5.83)
0.04 *** 0.05 **
LnMTE
(0.51) (0.82)
−0.06 ** 0.10 **
LnOE
(−4.87) (6.24)
−0.09 ** −0.09 **
LnHML
(−5.72) (−7.26)
−3.4572 ** −2.99 ** −2.8742 *** −2.01 **
Con_
(−88.53) (−14.61) (−72.31) (−5.30)
572.03 *** 841.90 ** 382.77 ** 492.31 ***
Hausman
(0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00)
R2 0.48 0.48 0.36 0.39
Note: N = 6631; ** indicates p < 0.01; *** indicates p < 0.001.
When describing the interaction between the two variables, using interaction terms
as a measure is a common method [76]. Calculating the interaction term can reveal the
interaction effects between green technology innovation and the digital economy. If the
coefficient of the interaction term is significant and positive, it indicates a positive mutual
promotion relationship between the two variables. If the coefficient is significant and
negative, it suggests a negative mutual constraint relationship. If the coefficient is not
significant, it indicates that the interaction effects between the two are weak or non-existent.
Therefore, using interaction terms as a measure could help us, to some extent, understand
the interaction between green technology innovation and the digital economy.
Moreover, Model (3) corresponds to the regression outcome regarding the influence of
green technology innovation and digital economy on the sustainability level of the green
economy, disregarding control variables. On the other hand, Model (4) represents the
regression outcome with the inclusion of control variables, examining the impact of green
technology innovation and the digital economy on the sustainability level of the green
economy. The empirical findings presented in Table 4 demonstrate that the digital economy
performs a positive regulating role in the process of green technology innovation, driving
the sustainability of the green economy. Therefore, hypothesis 3 also successfully passes
the test.
5.2. Threshold Effect Analysis Results

Drawing upon a comprehensive review of the pertinent literature, the authors em-
ployed the bootstrap sampling method to confirm the presence of a threshold effect. Es-
teemed scholars hold a strong consensus regarding the credibility of this approach. Addi-
tionally, based on the assumption that a threshold effect indeed exists, the authors would
proceed to compute the corresponding threshold quantity and threshold value, advancing
the analysis further.
The conclusive outcomes of the threshold effect analysis for the digital economy are
presented in Table 6. Upon careful examination of the data within the table, one can
observe that both the single threshold and double threshold of the digital economy have
successfully passed the test of statistical significance. However, the triple threshold, on the
other hand, does not yield statistically significant results. Therefore, it could be inferred
that the threshold effect of the digital economy manifests as a double threshold. Specifically,
the two thresholds are determined to be 5.7920 and 8.3374.
Table 6. Empirical analysis results of the digital economy threshold.
Threshold Threshold 10% 5% 1%

F Statistic p-Value
Type Value Threshold Threshold Threshold
Single 8.34 292.31 *** 0.00 98.32 112.40 147.08
Double 5.79 66.87 *** 0.00 44.27 62.09 97.31
Triple 12.73 21.33 * 0.00 83.06 95.21 106.73
Note: N = 6631; * indicates p < 0.05; *** indicates p < 0.001.
The p-values and threshold were obtained by repeated sampling 900 times by bootstrap
sampling.
The findings regarding the double threshold test results of the digital economy are
presented in Table 7 and Figure 2. The results are displayed as follows:
(1) In situations where the digital economy has not surpassed the threshold of 5.7920,
the influence of green technology innovation on green development appears to be
relatively modest. The coefficient of its influence is merely 0.0198, which has suc-
cessfully passed the significance test at the 5% level. During this phase, one possible
reason for green technology innovation’s limited impact could be attributed to the
comparatively underdeveloped sustainability of the digital economy. The relatively
less advanced state of digital economy sustainability impedes the full realization of
support efficiency for innovation-driven enterprises. Consequently, the positive effect
of green technology innovation on the green economy remains relatively constrained.
(2) As the digital economy falls within the range of the first threshold value of 5.7920 to
the second threshold value of 8.3374, the impact of green technology innovation on
green sustainability experiences a notable enhancement. The estimated coefficient of
green technology innovation increases from 0.0198 to 0.0621. It signifies that as the
sustainability of the digital economy improves, its capacity to assimilate and integrate
social resources is greatly amplified. Consequently, the role of the digital economy in
facilitating green technology innovation is significantly enhanced. Simultaneously,
the digital economy empowers green technology innovation to effectively contribute
to the advancement of green sustainability.
(3) Once the digital economy surpasses the second threshold value of 8.3374, the influence
of green technology innovation on the sustainability level of the green economy
undergoes a reduction. The estimated coefficient declines from 0.0621 to 0.00982. This
indicates that as the digital economy reaches a certain level of development, its impact
on green technology innovation gradually diminishes.
Table 7. Empirical analysis results of threshold regression.
Variable Name Coefficient Std. t-Value p-Value

LnGTI(LnDLE ≤ 5.7920) 0.02 ** 0.01 5.30 0.00
LnGTI(5.7920 < InDLE ≤ 8.3374) 0.06 ** 0.00 6.21 0.00
LnGTI(InDLE > 8.3374) 0.10 ** 0.00 3.88 0.00
LnSIS −0.18 ** 0.03 −2.75 0.00
LnMTE 0.05 *** 0.03 0.39 0.00
LnOE 0.02 ** 0.06 2.17 0.00
LnHML −0.06 ** 0.02 −2.91 0.00
Con_ −7.00 * 0.67 −6.61 0.00
LnSIS −0.18 ** 0.03 −2.75 0.00
LnMTE 0.05 *** 0.03 0.39 0.00
LnOE 0.02 ** 0.06 2.17 0.00
LnHML −0.06 ** 0.02 −2.91 0.00
Sustainability 2024, 16, 8557 Con_ −7.00 * 0.67 −6.61 0.00
14 of 23
Trendof
Figure2.2.Trend
Figure ofthreshold
threshold effect
effect of
of digital
digital economy.
economy.
The reasons
5.3. Robustness Testfor this situation are as follows: (1) The focus of the digital economy may
shift. As the digital economy develops to a certain level, its influence on green technology
To enhance the accuracy and reliability of the research conclusions, a robustness test
innovation gradually weakens. This is because the focus of the digital economy gradu-
was conducted on the empirical model. Prior to the robustness test, the authors applied
ally shifts towards other fields or technological directions rather than green technology
scientific data-dealing techniques. Trimming of outliers was performed on the data in or-
innovation. (2) The digital economy may face new challenges after reaching a certain stage
der to eliminate their influence. However, this trimming procedure is not conducted dur-
of development. These challenges require more resources and efforts to address, which
ing the robustness test. The results of the robustness test are presented in Table 8. The
may lead to a decrease in support for green technology innovation. (3) Green technology
coefficients of the main variables, including the green economy, the digital economy, and
innovation may have advanced to a point where it no longer requires support from the
green technology innovation, demonstrate consistent impact directions and statistical sig-
digital economy. After the digital economy has developed to a certain stage, green tech-
nificance compared to the previous study. This finding indicates that both the specified
nology innovation has already achieved a certain level of success and progress. In this
correlation model
context, green and the regression
technology innovationresults are acquired
itself has reliable and robust.level of self-propelling
a certain
force and developmental drive. The combined effect may result in the digital economy’s
Table 8. Robustness test results.
reduced impact on the sustainability level of the green economy through green technology
innovation.
Variables (1) (2) (3)
Consequently,
lnDLE the promoting
0.33 ** effect of green technology
0.49 ** innovation on 0.45 sustainabil-
the *
ity of the green economy experiences a further deceleration. This test outcome serves as
another affirmation of the robustness of the previously conducted study’s correlation findings.
5.3. Robustness Test

To enhance the accuracy and reliability of the research conclusions, a robustness test
was conducted on the empirical model. Prior to the robustness test, the authors applied
scientific data-dealing techniques. Trimming of outliers was performed on the data in
order to eliminate their influence. However, this trimming procedure is not conducted
during the robustness test. The results of the robustness test are presented in Table 8.
The coefficients of the main variables, including the green economy, the digital economy,
and green technology innovation, demonstrate consistent impact directions and statistical
significance compared to the previous study. This finding indicates that both the specified
correlation model and the regression results are reliable and robust.
Table 8. Robustness test results.

0.33 ** 0.49 ** 0.45 *
lnDLE
(0.02) (0.02) (0.03)
0.26 * 0.27 *** 0.31 **
lnGTI
(0.04) (0.05) (0.04)
4.28 *** 4.56 * 4.98 **
lnMTE
(0.09) (0.06) (0.09)
Table 8. Cont.

4.54 * 3.90 *** 2.19 **
lnSIS
(0.41) (0.57) (0.38)
0.49 ** 0.73 * 0.82 *
lnHML
(0.02) (0.03) (0.04)
6.13 * 7.11 ** 7.43 ***
lnOE
(2.80) (2.34) (1.99)
0.02 * 0.04 ** 0.04 **
C
(0.02) (0.02) (0.02)
R2 0.73 0.75 0.88
5.4. Further Analysis

5.4.1. The Digital Economy of Each Dimension Regression Analysis Results
Based on the aforementioned investigation, to thoroughly examine the impact of
different dimensions of the digital economy on the sustainability of the green economy,
this paper undertakes a regression analysis. The authors primarily integrate the effects
of digital industrialization, industry digitization, and digital industry infrastructure on
green sustainability to perform the regression analysis. The outcomes of the regression
analysis are presented in Table 9. Both digital industrialization and industry digitization
exhibit a positive and significant impact on the sustainability of the green economy at
the 1% level, signifying their promotion. Conversely, the influence coefficient of the
digital industry infrastructure on the green economy is negative and does not pass the
significance test. This result could be attributed to the fact that the construction of the digital
industry infrastructure serves as the foundation of the digital economy as it determines
the upper limit of the digital economy. Currently, China’s digital technology is still in
need of improvement, as various challenges persist in achieving sustainability in the
Chinese digital economy. Particularly, there is a notable delay in the development of digital
industry infrastructure in China, hampering the effective role of the digital economy in
promoting the sustainability of the green economy. Hence, it is plausible that the digital
industry infrastructure may exert a negative influence on the green economy. Moreover, the
data presented in Table 9 illustrate that regardless of the specific dimension of the digital
economy being considered, each dimension exhibits a positive impact on the sustainability
of the green economy. This finding underscores the consistent and favorable influence of
the digital economy on green technology innovation. Consequently, this empirical evidence
further validates the reasonableness of hypothesis 2.
Table 9. Regression empirical analysis results of the digital economy in each dimension.
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)

Variables Digital Industry
Digital Industrialization Industry Digitization
Infrastructure
0.09 **
DDN
(7.11)
−0.02 *
DII
(−0.35)
0.07 **
IDN
(8.34)
0.06 * 0.04 *** 0.07 ** 0.09 ** 0.07 * 0.01 **
LnGTI
(7.36) (0.59) (7.59) (5.33) (7.90) (0.81)
Table 9. Cont.
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)

Variables Digital Industry
Digital Industrialization Industry Digitization
Infrastructure
0.08 **
LnGTI × LnDDN
(6.11)
0.06 **
LnGTI × LnIDN
(3.19)
0.04 **
LnGTI × LnDI
(5.91)
Control Y Y Y Y Y Y
−1.33 * −3.59 * −3.93 * −4.30 ** −3.79 ** −3.95 **
Con_
(−2.66) (−6.71) (−7.80) (−8.03) (−5.18) (−5.31)
304.71 492.88 299.54 439.88 673.91 893.62
Hausman
(0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00)
R2 0.54 0.49 0.49 0.44 0.46 0.42
5.4.2. The Results of Regression Empirical Analysis of All Dimensions of Green

Economy Level
Based on the preceding investigation, this paper further partitions the sustainability
of the green economy into three dimensions: green industry, green environment, and
green society. All the dimensions are encompassed in the model deployed in this paper.
The effects of green technology innovation and digital economy on these aforementioned
dimensions of green sustainability are presented in Tables 10 and 11.
Table 10. Results of regression empirical analysis of each dimension of green economy level.
(1) (2) (3)

Variable
Green Society Green Industry Green Environment
0.57 ** 0.14 ** 0.23
LnDLE
(9.04) (1.62) (5.71)
0.57 ** 0.19 *** 0.03 *
LnGTI
(8.22) (0.94) (0.36)
4.10 * −0.32 *** −0.19 *
LnSIS
(8.03) (−1.22) (−0.72)
3.72 ** −0.18 ** 0.10 ***
LnMTE
(5.39) (−3.85) (0.31)
2.79 * 0.11 ** 0.35 **
LnOE
(2.29) (3.88) (2.04)
−0.14 * −0.04 ** 0.69 **
LnHML
(−1.15) (−0.99) (7.49)
−4.95 ** 5.80 * 7.26 **
Con_
(−2.28) (3.88) (4.81)
473.81 218.04 74.92
Hausman
(0.00) (0.00) (0.00)
R2 0.51 0.50 0.43
Table 11. Empirical analysis results of correlation effect regression of each dimension of the green economy.
(1) (2) (3)

Variable
Green Society Green Industry Green Environment
0.17 * 0.04 *** 0.01
LnGTI
(0.93) (0.14) (0.29)
0.39 ** 0.07 *** 0.09
LnGTI × LnDLE
(5.29) (1.63) (1.82)
7.06 *** −1.92 ** 0.37 **
LnSIS
(8.38) (−6.24) (1.06)
0.60 * −0.92 *** 0.72 **
LnMTE
(2.10) (−4.66) (1.58)
0.82 ** 0.18 * 0.21 **
LnOE
(3.99) (1.06) (4.81)
−0.27 * −0.14 ** −0.11 **
LnHML
(−4.18) (−3.91) (−4.03)
−9.04 *** 4.17 ** 2.89 ***
Con_
(−5.62) (4.93) (1.52)
478.22 307.81 89.62
Hausman
(0.00) (0.00) (0.00)
R2 0.42 0.29 0.1518
The empirical findings in Table 10 reveal that the digital economy exerts a positive
influence in fostering the sub-dimensions of green society and green industry. However,
the impact of the digital economy on the green environment is not statistically signifi-
cant. Similarly, the empirical data in Table 11 indicate that the correlation effect under
the conjunction of the digital economy does not yield a significant impact on the green
environment. Nevertheless, green technology innovation could stimulate improvements
in the realms of green society, green industry, and green environment, albeit to varying
degrees of promotion.
5.4.3. Heterogeneity Analysis Results of Different Regions

The research conducted by previous scholars indicates that there exist substantial
disparities in technology, economic circumstances, and industrial composition among
diverse regions [77]. These dissimilarities may consequently result in divergent impacts
of the digital economy and green technology innovation on the level of sustainability in
the green economy across different regions. Hence, relying on data obtained from the Na-
tional Bureau of Statistics, the authors classified China’s 34 provincial-level administrative
regions into three distinct regions: the eastern region, the central region, and the western
region. The outcomes, demonstrating the regional heterogeneity in the influence of green
technology innovation and digital economy on the sustainability level of green economy in
the aforementioned three regions, are delineated in Table 12.
The findings presented in Table 12 illustrate that across the three regions, namely the
eastern, central, and western regions, green technology innovation, the digital economy,
and their interaction terms exhibit a positive influence on the sustainability level of the
green economy. However, in the case of the western region, the regression coefficients
of the digital economy and its interaction terms do not achieve statistical significance.
It suggests that the digital economy exerts a comparatively lesser positive impact on
the green economy in the western region. The primary reason for this disparity lies in
the concentration of sustainability factors related to the digital economy in the eastern
and central regions. Additionally, the majority of provinces in the western region are
situated deep inland, characterized by a disadvantaged natural environment and relatively
underdeveloped technological and economic sustainability. Consequently, the effective

transfer and utilization of the digital economy sustainability elements pose challenges in
the western region. Consequently, the ability of the digital economy to enhance green
technology innovation and the green economy in the western region is diminished.
Table 12. Results of regression empirical analysis of heterogeneity in different regions.
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)

Variables
Western Region Central Region Eastern Region
0.57 * 0.2043 ** 0.7905 ***
LnDLE
(11.38) (6.63) (14.93)
0.01 * 0.3825 0.0175 *** 0.0462 0.0773 ** −0.0164
LnGTI
(1.37) (0.76) (2.83) (1.10) (4.29) (−0.16)
0.0944 0.0382 ** 0.5709 *
LnDLE × LnGTI
(0.71) (2.19) (4.62)
−0.09 * −0.0572 * −0.4982 ** −0.5892 ** −0.3782 ** −0.4022 ***
LnSIS
(−2.81) (−1.30) (−4.07) (−4.65) (−2.91) (−3.17)
−0.00 −0.0008 0.0742 * 0.0591 * 0.0932 *** 0.0874 **
LnMTE
(−0.15) (−0.17) (2.33) (1.84) (2.53) (2.39)
0.66 ** 0.3972 * −0.3955 * −0.3326 ** −0.6932 ** −0.5528 ***
LnOE
(9.01) (2.27) (−2.64) (−2.27) (−7.83) (−6.62)
−0.18 * −0.1804 * −0.1372 ** −0.1385 ** −0.1184 *** −0.1472 ***
LnHML
(−4.36) (−4.71) (−3.61) (−3.88) (−2.93) (−2.96)
−8.08 ** −7.4283 ** −5.7045 ** −4.8823 ** −3.9962 ** −5.7290 **
Con_
(−2.99) (−3.01) (−3.26) (−2.76) (−2.80) (−4.63)
22.30 21.75 62.93 39.81 102.71 94.72
Hausman
(0.00) (0.03) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00)
R2 0.72 0.70 0.89 0.89 0.52 0.50
6. Conclusions, Policy Implications, Limitations, and Future Research Directions

6.1. Conclusions
The findings derived from this paper reveal that green technology innovation, digital
economy, and their interaction play a constructive role in advancing the high-quality
sustainability of green economy. Furthermore, the digital economy exhibits a dual threshold
effect on the green economy when driven by green technology innovation. Once the
digital economy surpasses the first threshold, it significantly enhances the impact of green
technology innovation on the sustainability of the green economy. This research conclusion
also indirectly supports the correctness of Ryosuke’s (2022) research findings regarding the
green economy [78]. As the digital economy surpasses the second threshold, the influence
of green technology innovation on the sustainability of the green economy begins to decline
significantly. Nonetheless, the impact of green technology innovation and the digital
economy on the sustainability of the green economy differs significantly across various
regions of China. In the western region, the effect of the digital economy is comparatively
lower. Conversely, in the central and eastern regions, the digital economy plays a substantial
role in promoting the green economy.
The interplay among green technology innovation, the digital economy, and their
interaction fosters the advancement of high-quality sustainability within the realm of
the green economy. This is primarily due to the fact that a heightened level of digital
economy sustainability provides an expanded array of sustainability measures for the
green economy. Moreover, elevating the level of green technology innovation serves as
crucial technical support for enhancing the high-quality sustainability of the green economy.
Simultaneously, through the positive interaction between green technology innovation
and the digital economy, the sustainability of the green economy could be effectively
permeated and propelled forward. Furthermore, the digital economy, the green technology
innovation, and their synergy collectively play a significant role in promoting the high-
quality sustainability of the green economy. This research conclusion further extends and
enriches the findings of Lin (2021) [79]. Hence, to facilitate the advancement of high-quality
sustainability in the green economy, pertinent administrative bodies and stakeholders
should proactively promote green technology innovation and steer the sustainability of the
digital economy.
The digital economy exhibits a dual threshold effect on green technology innovation,
thereby contributing to the advancement of the green economy. Upon surpassing the first
threshold, the impact of green technology innovation on the sustainability of the green
economy is significantly amplified. However, once the digital economy goes beyond the
second threshold, the influence of green technology innovation on the sustainability of the
green economy starts to diminish noticeably. It is evident that during the initial phase of the
digital economy, the green technology innovation promotion effect on the green economy
could be effectively and positively adjusted. Nevertheless, as the level of the digital
economy progress reaches a certain point, it becomes less effective in regulating the green
technology innovation impact on the green economy. This implies a shift in the regulatory
role of the digital economy. This conclusion not only confirms the findings of Liu (2023) but
also enriches the content of related conclusions [80]. Consequently, individuals responsible
for oversight should adeptly harness the window of opportunity afforded by the digital
economy to promote the sustainability of the green economy to its fullest potential.
The influence of green technology innovation and digital economy on the green econ-
omy varies significantly across different regions of China. In the western region, the efficacy
of the digital economy is limited due to the underdeveloped auxiliary infrastructure, which
hampers its full potential. Consequently, both green technology innovation and the digital
economy play a relatively minor role in driving the sustainability of the green economy
in the western region. Conversely, in the central and eastern regions, green technology
innovation and digital economy play a substantial part in promoting the sustainability of
the green economy. Compared with the findings of Smit (2015), the conclusions of this
study are more aligned with the current reality of China’s green economic development [81].
The conclusions hold greater practical significance. As a result, administrators in these
regions should proactively leverage the advantages of green technology innovation and
the digital economy to effectively advance the sustainability of the green economy.
6.2. Implications
(1) The pertinent governmental entities should proactively enhance the infrastructure
pertaining to the digital economy. The digital economy serves as a crucial catalyst for
advancing green technology innovation and green economy [66]. Nonetheless, the
sustainability of the digital economy relies on comprehensive infrastructure support.
Thus, the relevant administrative departments should take proactive measures to
augment financial backing for the digital economy initiatives and facilitate the de-
velopment of associated facilities. These departments should expand the number of
internet mobile base stations within the region, increase the availability of internet
broadband access ports and internet domain names, and promote the adoption of
smartphones to elevate their penetration rate. By optimizing the infrastructure related
to the digital economy, the full potential of the digital economy functions could be
effectively harnessed, thereby propelling the sustainability of the local green economy.
(2) The pertinent bodies should endeavor to facilitate the seamless integration of green
technology innovation and the digital economy. Governments with jurisdiction ought
to proactively implement management policies concerning the digital economy and
green technology innovation. From a policy perspective, the government should
take an active role in guiding the deep integration of the digital economy and green
technology innovation within society. The provision of policy guarantees serves as a
vital foundation for promoting the sustainability of the green economy through the
utilization of green technology innovation and the digital economy [59]. Simultane-
ously, relevant enterprises should also embark upon enhancing their own production
practices and actively elevate the comprehensive level of green technology innovation
through its initiatives undertaken by firms empowered by the digital economy. Only
through the comprehensive integration of green technology innovation and the digital
economy can the sustainability of the regional green economy be effectively advanced.
(3) Management departments in different regions should take different management
measures. On the one hand, managers in the western region should not focus on the
digital economy. The region should prioritize the development of the infrastructure
needed for green technological innovation and green economic development. The
western region needs to be further promoted by the digital economy only after its
related infrastructure has been developed to a certain level. On the other hand, in the
central and eastern regions, government administrators should fully strengthen the
catalytic role of the digital economy. The region should actively build on the digital
economy and use green technology innovation to promote green economy develop-
ment. In particular, the government should make use of the talent, information, and
capital brought by the digital economy to actively promote the sustainability of the
green economy.
6.3. Limitations and Future Research Directions

Due to the study’s constraints in terms of length, as well as the time and energy of the
authors, there are certain limitations in the research conducted. These limitations also serve
as areas of focus for future researchers: (1) The variables within the theoretical model estab-
lished would benefit from further enrichment and adjustment. The current focus revolves
around the relationship between green technology innovation, the digital economy, and
the green economy, overlooking numerous other variables that influence the sustainability
of the green economy. As a result, future research endeavors would incorporate additional
variables into the theoretical mode. They include environmental regulations, government
policies, social culture, the business environment, economic structural adjustment, energy
consumption patterns, and environmental pollution emissions. By expanding the scope of
variables, a more comprehensive understanding of the factors impacting the sustainability
of the green economy could be achieved. (2) The sample scope of this study would benefit
from a broader expansion. Currently, the investigation focuses solely on the relationship
between green technology innovation, the digital economy, and the green economy in
various regions of China. It is without considering these issues in other countries. In future
studies, the authors intend to explore the green economy in different countries, including
the United States, Japan, the European Union, Brazil, India, and beyond. By encompassing
a more diverse range of countries, a more comprehensive understanding of the green
economy dynamics on a global scale could be gained. (3) The research methods employed
in this study could benefit from further enrichment. Currently, the paper relies solely on
the fixed effect model and threshold effect model. However, in future research endeavors,
the authors intend to incorporate additional empirical methods, such as structural equation
modeling, virtual simulation, robustness testing, and other empirical approaches. The uti-
lization of these diverse empirical methods is instrumental in enhancing the reliability and
stability of the research conclusions, ensuring a more robust and comprehensive analysis
of the problems at hand. (4) The effects of the digital economy components separately are
not analyzed in this paper. Due to the limitation of length, they do not further analyze the
effects of the digital economy components separately. In future studies, the authors will
take a closer look at the effect of digital industrialization, industrial digitization, and digital
industrial infrastructure. In particular, they would examine how these indicators influence
the process of the green economy and green technology innovation.
Author Contributions: Conceptualization, C.W. and D.Y.; methodology, T.L. and F.M.; validation and
formal analysis, D.D. and Y.Z.; investigation, F.M. and Y.H.; resources, C.W.; writing—original draft
preparation, C.W. and Y.Z.; writing—review and editing, all authors; visualization, C.W.; supervision,
Y.H. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: The work was supported by the Philosophy and Social Science Research Planning Project
of Heilongjiang Province (No. 22GJB127), the National Social Science Fund of China (No. 22CGL030),
the Basic Research Business Expenses Research Project of Provincial Colleges and Universities in the
Heilongjiang Province (No. 2022-KYYWF-1208), the Humanities and Social Science Project of the
Ministry of Education of China (No. 20YJC790082), and Postdoctoral Project of Heilongjiang Province
(No. LBH-Z23128). The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to
publish, or preparation of the manuscript.
Institutional Review Board Statement: Not applicable.
Informed Consent Statement: Not applicable.
Data Availability Statement: The original contributions presented in the study are included in the
article, further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author.
Acknowledgments: We would like to express our sincere gratitude to Heilongjiang University and
Harbin Engineering University for their invaluable support and guidance throughout the course of
this research.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflicts of interest. Supporting entities had no role
in the design of the study, in the collection, analysis, or interpretation of data, in the writing of the
manuscript, or in the decision to publish the results.
References
1. Hintosová, A.; Bódy, G. Sustainable FDI in the digital economy. Sustainability 2023, 15, 10794. [CrossRef]
2. Zhang, F.; Wang, F.L.; Hao, R.Y. Agricultural science and technology innovation, spatial spillover and agricultural green
development-Taking 30 provinces in China as the research object. Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 845. [CrossRef]
3. Wang, H.; Peng, G.; Du, H. Digital economy development boosts urban resilience-evidence from China. Sci. Rep. 2024, 14, 2925.
[CrossRef]
4. Chen, H.; Ma, Z.; Xiao, H. The impact of digital economy empowerment on green total factor productivity in forestry. Forests
2023, 9, f14091729. [CrossRef]
5. Li, J.; Chen, L.; Chen, Y. Digital economy, technological innovation, and green economic efficiency-Empirical evidence from 277
cities in China. Manag. Decis. Econ. 2022, 3, 616–629. [CrossRef]
6. Lin, Y.; Wang, Q.; Zheng, M. Nexus Among Digital Economy, Green Innovation, and Green Development: Evidence from China.
Emerg. Mark. Financ. Trade 2024, 60, 704–723. [CrossRef]
7. Qiu, Y.; Liu, W.; Wu, J. Digital economy and urban green innovation: From the perspective of environmental regulation. J. Environ.
Plan. Manag. 2023, 8, 2244668. [CrossRef]
8. Mostafaei, H.; Ghojazadeh, M.; Hajebrahimi, S. Fixed-effect versus random-effects models for meta-analyses: Fixed-effect models.
Eur. Urol. Focus. 2023, 9, 691–692. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
9. Bester, C.; Hansen, C. Grouped effects estimators in fixed effects models. J. Econom. 2016, 190, 197–208. [CrossRef]
10. Lorek, S.; Spangenberg, J. Sustainable consumption within a sustainable economy beyond green growth and green economies. J.
Clean. Prod. 2014, 63, 33–44. [CrossRef]
11. Meshulam, T.; Goldberg, S.; Ivanova, D. The sharing economy is not always greener: A review and consolidation of empirical
evidence. Environ. Res. Lett. 2024, 1, 013004. [CrossRef]
12. Huang, Y.; Chen, Z.; Li, H.; Yin, S. The impact of digital economy on green total factor productivity considering the labor-
technology-pollution factors. Sci. Rep. 2023, 13, 22902. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
13. Brynjolfsson, E.; Yu, J.; Smith, M. Consumer surplus in the digital economy: Estimating the value of increased product variety at
online booksellers. Manag. Sci. 2003, 49, 1580–1596. [CrossRef]
14. Zhong, X.; Duan, Z.; Liu, C.; Chen, W. Research on the coupling mechanism and influencing factors of digital economy and green
technology innovation in Chinese urban agglomerations. Sci. Rep. 2023, 14, 515. [CrossRef]
15. Naseer, S.; Song, H.; Aslam, M.S. Assessment of green economic efficiency in China using analytical hierarchical process (AHP).
Soft Comput. 2022, 26, 2489–2499. [CrossRef]
16. Firdousi, S.; Afzal, A.; Amir, B. Nexus between FinTech, renewable energy resource consumption, and carbon emissions. Environ.
Sci. Pollut. Res. 2023, 30, 84686–84704. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
17. Chen, X.; Shuai, C.; Wu, Y. Analysis on the carbon emission peaks of China’s industrial, building, transport, and agricultural
sectors. Sci. Total Environ. 2019, 709, 135768. [CrossRef]
18. Tasri, E.S.; Karimi, S.; Handra, H. Application model of green economic growth and economic gap. Int. J. Green. Econ. 2016, 10,
51–68. [CrossRef]
19. Vargas-Hernández, J.; Justyna, Z. Green economic growth based on urban ecology and biodiversity. Int. J. Environ. Sustain. Green.
Technol. 2020, 12, 58–75.
20. Bartlett, D.; Trifilova, A. Green technology and eco-innovation: Seven case-studies from a Russian manufacturing context. J.
Manuf. Technol. Manag. 2010, 21, 910–929. [CrossRef]
21. Qiao, P.; Liu, S.; Fung, H.; Wang, C. Corporate green innovation in a digital economy. Int. Rev. Econ. Financ. 2024, 92, 870–883.
[CrossRef]
22. Zhang, Y.; Liu, X.; Yang, J. Digital economy, green dual innovation and carbon emissions. Sustainability 2024, 16, 7291. [CrossRef]
23. Wu, J.; Xue, Y.; Zhang, Q.; Liu, Y. Digital economy, financial development, and corporate green technology innovation. Financ.
Res. Lett. 2024, 66, 105552. [CrossRef]
24. Afzal, A.; Rasoulinezhad, E.; Malik, Z. A bibliometric analysis of economic research-Ekonomska Istrazivanja (2007–2019). Econ.
Res. Ekon. Istraživanja 2020, 35, 5150–5163. [CrossRef]
25. Peters, K.; Buijs, P. Strategic ambidexterity in green product innovation: Obstacles and implications. Bus. Strategy Environ. 2022,
31, 173–193. [CrossRef]
26. Achi, A.; Adeola, O.; Achi, C. CSR and green process innovation as antecedents of micro, small, and medium enterprise
performance: Moderating role of perceived environmental volatility. J. Bus. Res. 2022, 139, 771–781. [CrossRef]
27. Kar, S.; Harichandan, S. Green marketing innovation and sustainable consumption: A bibliometric analysis. J. Clean. Prod. 2022,
361, 132290. [CrossRef]
28. Tahsin, J. The effects of ICT on environment quality: The role of green technological innovation in Asian developing countries.
Asian J. Econ. Model. 2022, 10, 92–107. [CrossRef]
29. Oliveira, D.; Fonseca, F.H.; Baruque-Ramos, J. From fashion to farm: Green marketing innovation strategies in the Brazilian
organic cotton ecosystem. J. Clean. Prod. 2022, 360, 132196. [CrossRef]
30. Yeon, K. The political economy of Kim Jong-un’s green discussion: Focusing on the green economy and green growth. J. Int. Relat.
2024, 27, 47–80.
31. Kozera, M. Human capital for the green economy. Econ. Environ. 2024, 88, 674. [CrossRef]
32. Wang, C.; Du, D.; Liu, T.; Li, X. Environmental regulations, green technological innovation, and green economy: Evidence from
china. Sustainability 2024, 16, 16135630. [CrossRef]
33. Rahman, M.; Woodside, A. The virtuous circle between green product innovation and performance: The role of financial constraint
and corporate brand. J. Bus. Res. 2023, 154, 32–63. [CrossRef]
34. Runzhe, H. Digital economy empowers China’s rural revitalization: Current situations, problems and recommendations. Asian
Agric. Res. 2021, 13, 13–24.
35. Bo, C. The digital economy: What is new and what is not? Struct. Chang. Econ. D 2004, 15, 245–264.
36. Wang, Q.; Li, W.; Gong, Z.; Fu, J. The coupling and coordination between digital economy and green economy: Evidence from
china. Emerg. Mark. Financ. Trade 2024, 9, 2399555. [CrossRef]
37. Huws, U. Labor in the global digital economy: The cybertariat comes of age. Int. Sociol. 2014, 74, 61–88.
38. Gusmanov, R.; Stovba, E.; Paptsov, A. Scenario forecasting of the agri-food sphere in rural territories development in the
conditions of digital economy formation. J. Ind. Integr. Manag. 2022, 7, 257–272. [CrossRef]
39. Bag, S.; Pisa, N.; Sahu, A. Modeling barriers of digital manufacturing in a circular economy for enhancing the sustainability. Int. J.
Product. Perfor 2022, 71, 833–869. [CrossRef]
40. Effendi, M.I.; Widjanarko, H.; Sugandini, D. Green supply chain integration and technology innovation performance in SMEs: A
case study in Indonesia. J. Asian Financ. Econ. Bus. 2021, 8, 9–18.
41. Losacker, S. License to green: Regional patent licensing networks and green technology diffusion in China. Technol. Forecast. Soc.
2022, 10, 175–193. [CrossRef]
42. Mokrzycki, E.; Gawlik, L. The development of a green hydrogen economy: Review. Energies 2024, 17, 3165. [CrossRef]
43. Nurpeisova, A.; Niyazbekova, S.; Zhangaliyeva, Y.; Tovma, N. Responsible consumption for a green economy in Kazakhstan.
Amazon. Investig. 2024, 13, 20–41. [CrossRef]
44. Mehmood, K.; Hanaysha, J. Impact of corporate social responsibility, green intellectual capital, and green innovation on
competitive advantage: Building contingency model. Int. J. Hum. Cap. Inf. Technol. 2022, 13, 1–14. [CrossRef]
45. Yadav, A. A review of green and innovative technology for a sustainable environment. In Sustainable Environmental Clean-Up;
Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2021; Volume 44, pp. 71–83.
46. Teo, T. Understanding the digital economy: Data, tools, and research. Asia Pac. J. Manag. 2001, 18, 553–555. [CrossRef]
47. Haltiwanger, J.; Jarmin, R. Measuring the digital economy. Underst. Digit. Econ. 1999, 18, 1–15.
48. Zou, J.; Deng, X. To inhibit or to promote: How does the digital economy affect urban migrant integration in China? Technol.
Forecast. Soc. 2022, 179, 121647. [CrossRef]
49. Li, Y. Association between China’s digital economy and labor education in post-pandemic of COVID-19 based on neural network.
J. Intell. Fuzzy Syst. 2020, 39, 8839–8845. [CrossRef]
50. Kim, B.; Barua, A.; Whinston, A. Virtual field experiments for a digital economy: A new research methodology for exploring an
information economy. Decis. Support. Syst. 2002, 32, 215–231. [CrossRef]
51. Mengna, L.; Zhou, Y. Effect of digital economy development on human capital structure. China Econ. Front. 2022, 17, 104–133.
52. Zhang, J.; Yasin, I. Greening the BRICS: How green innovation mitigates ecological footprints in energy-hungry economies.
Sustainability 2024, 16, 3980. [CrossRef]
53. Shen, Y.; Lin, Y.; Cui, S. Crucial factors of the built environment for mitigating carbon emissions. Sci. Total Environ. 2021, 806,
150864. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
54. Schiederig, T.; Tietze, F.; Herstatt, C. Green innovation in technology and innovation management. R D Manag. 2012, 42, 180–192.
55. John, R.; Crawford, C. Estimating IQ from demographic variables: A comparison of a regression equation vs. clinical judgement.
Brit. J. Clin. Psychol. 2010, 40, 88–96.
56. Gregoire, T.; Schabenberger, O.; Kong, F. Prediction from an integrated regression equation: A Forestry Application. Biometrics
2000, 56, 414–419. [CrossRef]
57. Gouvea, R.; Li, S.; Montoya, M.M. Does transitioning to a digital economy imply lower levels of corruption. Thunderbird Int. Bus.
2022, 64, 221–233. [CrossRef]
58. Oliveira, J.; Doll, C.; Balaban, O. Green economy and governance in cities: Assessing good governance in key urban economic
processes. J. Clean. Prod. 2013, 58, 138–152. [CrossRef]
59. Xu, C.; Li, L. The dynamic relationship among green logistics, technological innovation and green economy: Evidence from
China. Heliyon 2024, 10, e26534. [CrossRef]
60. Cheilas, P.; Daglis, T.; Xidonas, P.; Michaelides, P. Financial dynamics, green transition and hydrogen economy in European. Int.
Rev. Econ. Financ. 2024, 94, 103370. [CrossRef]
61. Chan, P. Cambodian green economy transition: Background, progress, and SWOT analysis. World 2024, 5, 413–452. [CrossRef]
62. Olvera, M. Reconfiguration of climate-change governance: Transnational green-economic regions and local governments in North
America. Int. Soc. Opt. Eng. 2011, 69, 1–11.
63. Rebeck, K. Book review: Too high to fail: Cannabis and the new green economic revolution. Am. Econ. 2014, 59, 94–96. [CrossRef]
64. Helberger, N.; Sax, M.; Strycharz, J. Choice architectures in the digital economy: Towards a new understanding of digital
vulnerability. J. Consum. Policy 2022, 45, 175–200. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
65. Salmon, N.; Baares-Alcántara, R. A global, spatially granular techno-economic analysis of offshore green ammonia production. J.
Clean. Prod. 2022, 367, 133045. [CrossRef]
66. Worthington, I.; Patton, D. Strategic intent in the management of the green environment within SMEs: An analysis of the UK
screen-printing sector. Long. Range Plan. 2005, 38, 197–212. [CrossRef]
67. Marudhamuthu, R.; Krishnaswamy, M. The development of green environment through lean implementation in a garment
industry. J. Eng. Appl. Sci. 2011, 6, 104–111.
68. Turner, F. Code: Collaborative ownership and the digital economy. Technol. Cult. 2006, 47, 685–686. [CrossRef]
69. Mutula, S.; Brakel, P. ICT skills readiness for the emerging global digital economy among small businesses in developing countries:
Case study of Botswana. Libr. Hi. Technol. 2007, 25, 231–245. [CrossRef]
70. Zanizdra, M.; Harkushenko, O.; Vishnevsky, V. Digital and green economy: Common grounds and contradictions. Sci. Innov.
2021, 17, 14–27.
71. Sterev, N.; Idriz, F. The IM (Possible) transition towards the digital economy in Bulgaria. Econ. Altern. 2022, 38, 142–150.
72. Chen, L. The impact of digital economy on total factor productivity of China’s service industry. Financ. Econ. Res. 2021, 5, 90–101.
73. Dunne, N. Pro-competition regulation in the digital economy: The United Kingdom’s digital markets unit. Antitrust Bull. 2022,
67, 341–366. [CrossRef]
74. Petersen, J.; Paulich, J.; Khodakarami, F. Customer-based execution strategy in a global digital economy. Int. J. Res. Mark. 2022, 9,
566–582. [CrossRef]
75. Huong, P.; Cherian, J.; Hien, N. Environmental management, green innovation, and social-open innovation. Open Innov. Technol.
Mark. Complex. 2021, 7, 89. [CrossRef]
76. Meidute-Kavaliauskiene, I.; Idem, E.; Vasiliauskas, A.V. Green innovation in environmental complexity: The implication of open
innovation. Open Innov. Technol. Mark. Complex. 2021, 7, 107. [CrossRef]
77. Yeung, M.; Chan, M.; Huang, K. Normative reference values and regression equations to predict the 6-minute walk distance in
the Asian adult population aged 21–80 years. Hong. Kong Physiother. J. 2022, 42, 111–124. [CrossRef]
78. Ryosuke, F.; Giulia, B.; Dariush, G. Structural equation modelling to improve kidney function assessment in the general population.
Nephrol. Dial. Transpl. 2022, 37, 279–289.
79. Lin, S.L.; Chen, Z.Y.; He, Z.W. Rapid Transportation and Green Technology Innovation in Cities-From the View of the Industrial
Collaborative Agglomeration. Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 8110. [CrossRef]
80. Liu, J.; Fang, Y.; Ma, Y. Digital economy, industrial agglomeration, and green innovation efficiency: Empirical analysis based on
Chinese data. J. Appl. Econ. 2023, 27, 2289–2723. [CrossRef]
81. Smit, S.; Musango, J. Towards connecting green economy with informal economy in South Africa: A review and way forward.
Ecol. Econ. 2015, 116, 154–159. [CrossRef]
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.

Impact of Green Technology Innovation On Green Eco

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Impact of Green Technology Innovation On Green Eco

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Impact of Green Technology Innovation On Green Eco

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

sustainability

Academic Editor: Rajesh

Sustainability 2024, 16, 8557. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16198557 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability

the sustainability of the green economy [35]. Accordingly, a systematic investigation

2.4. Research Gaps

3.2. The Influence of Digital Economy on Green Economy

LnGEDit = α0 + α1 Lngiit × I(Lndfit ≤ c) + α2 Lngiit × I(Lndfit > c) + βi LnNit + εit (4)

4.3. Variable Index Selection

Table 1. Evaluation index system of the sustainability of green economy level.

Index Items Attribute Reference

Urban green space coverage Negative

4.3.2. Explanatory Variables

Table 2. The evaluation index system of the digital economy.

Index Items Attribute Reference

Digital industrial Number of broadband internet access ports Positive

4.3.3. Control Variable

Table 3. Relevant variables, indicators and data sources of this study.

Variables Index Data Source

4.4. Data and Method

4.5. Multi-Correlations Test

Table 4. The results of the correlation analysis.

GED DLE GTI

Table 5. Empirical analysis results of baseline regression.

Variables (1) (2) (3) (4)

5.2. Threshold Effect Analysis Results

Table 6. Empirical analysis results of the digital economy threshold.

Threshold Threshold 10% 5% 1%

Variable Name Coefficient Std. t-Value p-Value

5.3. Robustness Test

Table 8. Robustness test results.

Variables (1) (2) (3)

Variables (1) (2) (3)

5.4. Further Analysis

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)

5.4.2. The Results of Regression Empirical Analysis of All Dimensions of Green

(1) (2) (3)

(1) (2) (3)

5.4.3. Heterogeneity Analysis Results of Different Regions

underdeveloped technological and economic sustainability. Consequently, the effective

Table 12. Results of regression empirical analysis of heterogeneity in different regions.

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)

6. Conclusions, Policy Implications, Limitations, and Future Research Directions

6.3. Limitations and Future Research Directions

You might also like