Vol. 14 No. 2 (2026)
June 2026

Articles

Impact of innovation and economic structure on CO₂ emissions in Poland and Spain: Evidence from Bayesian Fourier autoregressive distributed lag modelling

Published 2026-06-01

  • Błażej Suproń
    • ,
  • Irena Łącka
    • ,
  • Agnieszka Brelik
    • ,
  • Antonio Minguez Vera

Błażej Suproń
West Pomeranian University of Technology in Szczecin

Irena Łącka
West Pomeranian University of Technology in Szczecin

Agnieszka Brelik
West Pomeranian University of Technology in Szczecin

Antonio Minguez Vera
Univesidad de Murcia

Abstract

Objective: The article aims to determine the impact of innovation, the level of economic activity (measured as GDP per capita), and the added value of key economic sectors (agriculture, industry, and services) on CO₂ emissions in Poland and Spain, and to assess whether innovations could significantly reduce emissions considering economic structural differences and dynamics.

Research Design & Methods: The study employed a quantitative research design. It used Fourier autoregressive distributed lag (FARDL) and Bayesian Fourier autoregressive distributed lag (Bayesian FARDL) econometric models to analyse data from 1995 to 2022. The sample encompassed macroeconomic data for Poland and Spain.

Findings: The study revealed significant differences between Poland and Spain. In Poland, despite a higher number of patent applications, technological innovations did not significantly affect CO₂ emissions, indicating limited application in high-emission sectors. Conversely, in Spain, innovations positively impacted CO₂ emissions, particularly in energy-intensive sectors. Energy consumption strongly influenced emissions in both countries, with Spain showing a more pronounced long-term effect. GDP negatively affected CO₂ emissions in Poland over the long run, whereas the study did not identify such relationship for Spain. The industrial and service sectors significantly impacted emissions and innovation in Poland, while in Spain, the industrial sector and patent activity were crucial determinants.

Implications & Recommendations: The findings highlight the need for tailored economic and energy policy adjustments in both countries, especially focused on innovation, to enhance the effectiveness of their green transitions.

Contribution & Value Added: This article contributes by providing a comparative analysis of Poland and Spain using advanced econometric methods, identifying country-specific dynamics between innovation, sectoral structure, the level of economic activity, and CO₂ emissions, thus providing novel insights for policymaking in the context of sustainability. Moreover, the study applied a relatively new and advanced Bayesian Fourier ARDL modelling, enhancing the analysis’ methodological rigour.

Keywords

CO₂ emissions, innovation, economic development, sectoral analysis, Bayesian ARDL

(PDF) Save

Author Biography

Błażej Suproń

Assistant Professor at the Faculty of Economics, West Pomeranian University of Technology in Szczecin, Poland. His research interests focus on data science and econometrics, particularly advanced Bayesian modelling, autoregressive models, machine learning methods, and ecological economics. He primarily employs quantitative research methods in his studies.

Irena Łącka

Professor at the Faculty of Economics, West Pomeranian University of Technology, Poland. Head of the Department of Economics, Finance and Accounting. Her research interests include determinants of economic growth, efficiency and productivity of universities and innovation systems, energy transformation, sustainable development, challenges of the modern economy, strategic and technological cooperation on a micro-, meso- and macro scale, clusters, cooperation between science and business, helix models, innovation of enterprises and the economy.

Agnieszka Brelik

Professor at the Faculty of Economics, West Pomeranian University of Technology, Poland. Head of the Department Regional and European Studies. Author of over 150 publications especially in the field of sustainable development. Participant of several dozen grants and projects, realised for National Science Center, polish ministries and central institutions and regional/ local governments. Her research interests include the economics of tourism and sustainable development.

Antonio Minguez Vera

Full Professor at the Faculty of Economics and Business, University of Murcia, Spain. His research has been highly cited internationally, demonstrating significant academic impact, particularly in the fields of ethics, corporate finance, board diversity, and financial economics. He has successfully led several research projects as principal investigator and contributed actively to numerous national and international research teams. His work is published in prestigious journals. His research interests include gender diversity, corporate finance and corporate governance.

References

  1. Addai, K., & Kirikkaleli, D. (2023). Insights from Poland on the long-run effect of energy productivity on environmental degradation: A Fourier ARDL-based approach. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 30(23), 63453-63463. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-023-26595-0
  2. Adebayo, T.S. (2020). Dynamic Relationship between Oil Price and Inflation in Oil Exporting Economy: Empirical Evidence from Wavelet Coherence Technique. Energy Economics Letters, 7(1), 12-22. https://doi.org/10.18488/journal.82.2020.71.12.22
  3. Adedoyin, F.F., Mavengere, N., & Mutanga, A. (2022). A simulation experiment on ICT and patent intensity in South Africa: An application of the novel dynamic ARDL machine learning model. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 185, 122044. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2022.122044
  4. Albino, V., Ardito, L., Dangelico, R.M., & Petruzzelli, A.M. (2014). Understanding the development trends of low-carbon energy technologies: A patent analysis. Applied Energy, 135, 836-854. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2014.08.114
  5. Balfour, R., Ülgen, S., Baroncelli, E., Bornassi, L., Csernatoni, R., Goldthau, A., Grevi, G., Hoeffler, C., Jones, E., Nair, P. P., & others. (2024). Geopolitics and Economic Statecraft in the European Union. Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.
  6. Becker, R., Enders, W., & Lee, J. (2006). A stationarity test in the presence of an unknown number of smooth breaks. Journal of Time Series Analysis, 27(3), 381-409. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9892.2006.00478.x
  7. Bernardo, J.M., & Smith, A.F. (2009). Bayesian theory (Vol. 405). John Wiley & Sons.
  8. Calliari, E., Castellari, S., Davis, M., Linnerooth-Bayer, J., Martin, J., Mysiak, J., Pastor, T., Ramieri, E., Scolobig, A., Sterk, M., & others. (2022). Building climate resilience through nature-based solutions in Europe: A review of enabling knowledge, finance and governance frameworks. Climate Risk Management, 37, 100450. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.crm.2022.100450
  9. Cooke, P., Uranga, M.G., & Etxebarria, G. (1997). Regional innovation systems: Institutional and organisational dimensions. Research Policy, 26(4-5), 475-491. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0048-7333(97)00025-5
  10. Dong, K., Taghizadeh-Hesary, F., & Zhao, J. (2022). How inclusive financial development eradicates energy poverty in China? The role of technological innovation. Energy Economics, 109, 106007. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eneco.2022.106007
  11. Dutta, S., Rivera León, L., & Wunsch-Vincent, S. (2024). Global Innovation Index 2024: Unlocking the Promise of Social Entrepreneurship. World Intellectual Property Organization.
  12. Enders, W., & Jones, P. (2016). Grain prices, oil prices, and multiple smooth breaks in a VAR. Studies in Nonlinear Dynamics & Econometrics, 20(4), 399-419. https://doi.org/10.1515/snde-2014-0101
  13. Enders, W., & Lee, J. (2012). The flexible Fourier form and Dickey-Fuller type unit root tests. Economics Letters, 117(1), 196-199. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econlet.2012.04.081
  14. European Commission. (2024a). EU eco-innovation index 2024. Publications Office of the European Union. https://doi.org/10.2777/4878812
  15. European Commission. (2024b). European Innovation Scoreboard 2024. Publications Office of the European Union. https://doi.org/doi/10.2777/779689
  16. Flikkema, M., Castaldi, C., De Man, A.-P., & Seip, M. (2019). Trademarks’ relatedness to product and service innovation: A branding strategy approach. Research Policy, 48(6), 1340-1353. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2019.01.018
  17. Genstwa, N. (2020). Środowiskowa krzywa Kuznetsa: Przegląd teoretyczno-metodyczny. Rozwój Regionalny i Polityka Regionalna, 49, 39-50. https://doi.org/10.14746/rrpr.2020.49.04
  18. Georgescu, I., & Kinnunen, J. (2024). Dynamic interactions between GDP, renewable energy, innovation, and CO2 emissions in Finland: A fourier-augmented ARDL analysis. Letters in Spatial and Resource Sciences, 17(1), 27. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12076-024-00391-x
  19. Ghorbal, S., Soltani, L., & Ben Youssef, S. (2024). Patents, fossil fuels, foreign direct investment, and carbon dioxide emissions in South Korea. Environment, Development and Sustainability, 26(1), 109-125. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-022-02770-0
  20. Greenhalgh, C., & Rogers, M. (2010). Innovation, intellectual property, and economic growth. In Innovation, intellectual property, and economic growth. Princeton University Press.
  21. Grossman, G.M., & Krueger, A.B. (1995). Economic growth and the environment. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 110(2), 353-377. https://doi.org/10.2307/2118443
  22. Gültekin, Ö.F., Sayar, R., & Ari, Y.O. (2023). Socio-economic determinants of environmental degradation: Empirical evidence for the Environmental Kuznets Curve. Economics & Business Review, 9(3). https://doi.org/10.18559/ebr.2023.3.797
  23. Ibikunle, G., & Steffen, T. (2017). European green mutual fund performance: A comparative analysis with their conventional and black peers. Journal of Business Ethics, 145(2), 337-355. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-015-2850-7
  24. Iyke-Ofoedu, M.I., Takon, S.M., Ugwunta, D.O., Ezeaku, H.C., Nsofor, E.S., & Egbo, O.P. (2024). Impact of CO2 emissions embodied in the agricultural sector on carbon sequestration in South Africa: The role of environmental taxes and technological innovation. Journal of Cleaner Production, 444, 141210. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2024.141210
  25. Kabeyi, M.J., & Olanrewaju, A, O. (2021). Sustainable Energy Transition for Renewable and Low Carbon Grid Electricity Generation and Supply. Frontiers in Energy Research, 9. https://doi.org/10.3389/fenrg.2021.743114
  26. Kirikkaleli, D., Abbasi, K.R., & Oyebanji, M.O. (2023). The asymmetric and long-run effect of environmental innovation and CO2 intensity of GDP on consumption-based CO2 emissions in Denmark. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 30(17), 50110-50124. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-023-25811-1
  27. Kirikkaleli, D., Sofuoğlu, E., & Ojekemi, O. (2023). Does patents on environmental technologies matter for the ecological footprint in the USA?. Evidence from the novel Fourier ARDL approach. Geoscience Frontiers, 14(4), 101564. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gsf.2023.101564
  28. Koç, Ş., Uctu, R., Essop, H. & Mercan B. (2026). The impact of innovation on economic growth: A dynamic panel data analysis using system GMM approach. International Journal of Innovation Studies, 10(1), 20-30, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijis.2025.09.003.
  29. Kortum, S., & Lerner, J. (1998). Stronger protection or technological revolution: What is behind the recent surge in patenting?. Carnegie-Rochester Conference Series on Public Policy, 48, 247-304. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0167-2231(98)00023-2
  30. Kumaresan, N., & Miyazaki, K. (1999). An integrated network approach to systems of innovation—The case of robotics in Japan. Research Policy, 28(6), 563-585. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0048-7333(98)00128-0
  31. Lau, L.-S., Yii, K.-J., Ng, C.-F., Tan, Y.-L., & Yiew, T.-H. (2023). Environmental Kuznets curve (EKC) hypothesis: A bibliometric review of the last three decades. Energy & Environment, 36(1), 93-131. https://doi.org/10.1177/0958305X231177734
  32. Luderer, G., Vrontisi, Z., Bertram, C., Edelenbosch, O.Y., Pietzcker, R.C., Rogelj, J., De Boer, H.S., Drouet, L., Emmerling, J., Fricko, O., & others. (2018). Residual fossil CO2 emissions in 1.5-2 C pathways. Nature Climate Change, 8(7), 626-633. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-018-0198-6
  33. Lundvall, B.-Å. (Ed.). (2010). National Systems of Innovation. Anthem Press; JSTOR. http://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt1gxp7cs
  34. McNown, R., Sam, C.Y., & Goh, S.K. (2018). Bootstrapping the autoregressive distributed lag test for cointegration. Applied Economics, 50(13), 1509-1521. https://doi.org/10.1080/00036846.2017.1366643
  35. Meka’a, C.B., Djamen, B.L., & Noufelie, R. (2024). Foreign direct investment, green technological innovation and energy poverty: Empirical evidences from sub-Saharan African countries. Renewable Energy, 231, 120831. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2024.120831
  36. Mendonça, S., Pereira, T.S., & Godinho, M.M. (2004). Trademarks as an indicator of innovation and industrial change. Research Policy, 33(9), 1385-1404. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2004.09.005
  37. Musah, M., Kong, Y., Mensah, I.A., Antwi, S.K., & Donkor, M. (2021). The connection between urbanization and carbon emissions: A panel evidence from West Africa. Environment, Development and Sustainability, 23, 11525-11552.https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-020-01124-y
  38. Myszczyszyn, J., & Suproń, B. (2021). Relationship among Economic Growth (GDP), Energy Consumption and Carbon Dioxide Emission: Evidence from V4 Countries. Energies, 14(22), Article 22. https://doi.org/10.3390/en14227734
  39. Narayan, P.K. (2005). The saving and investment nexus for China: Evidence from cointegration tests. Applied Economics, 37(17), 1979-1990. https://doi.org/10.1080/00036840500278103
  40. Nazlioglu, S., Gormus, A., & Soytas, U. (2019). Oil Prices and Monetary Policy in Emerging Markets: Structural Shifts in Causal Linkages. Emerging Markets Finance and Trade, 55(1), 105-117. https://doi.org/10.1080/1540496X.2018.1434072
  41. OECD. (2018). Oslo manual 2018 (4th ed.). Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD).
  42. Olaleru, S., Kirui, J., Elegbeleye, F., & Aniyikaiye, T. (2021). Green Technology Solution to Global Climate Change Mitigation. Energy, Environment, and Storage Journal, 1(1), 26-41. https://doi.org/10.52924/DNRM8834
  43. Olayeni, R.O., Tiwari, A.K., & Wohar, M.E. (2021). Fractional frequency flexible Fourier form (FFFFF) for panel cointegration test. Applied Economics Letters, 28(6), 482-486. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504851.2020.1761526
  44. Oyebanji, M.O., Castanho, R.A., Genc, S.Y., & Kirikkaleli, D. (2022). Patents on Environmental Technologies and Environmental Sustainability in Spain. Sustainability, 14, 6670. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14116670
  45. Pesaran, M.H., Shin, Y., & Smith, R.J. (2001). Bounds testing approaches to the analysis of level relationships. Journal of Applied Econometrics, 16(3), 289-326. https://doi.org/10.1002/jae.616
  46. Rosslowe, C., & Petrovich, B. (2025). European Electricity Review 2025. EMBER. Retrieved from https://ember-energy.org/latest-insights/european-electricity-review-2025/ on March 11, 2025.
  47. Sadiq, M., Chau, K.Y., Ha, N.T.T., Phan, T.T.H., Ngo, T.Q., & Huy, P.Q. (2024). The impact of green finance, eco-innovation, renewable energy and carbon taxes on CO2 emissions in BRICS countries: Evidence from CS ARDL estimation. Geoscience Frontiers, 15(4), 101689. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gsf.2023.101689
  48. Samargandi, N. (2017). Sector value addition, technology and CO2 emissions in Saudi Arabia. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 78, 868-877. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2017.04.056
  49. Serener, B., Kirikkaleli, D., & Addai, K. (2023). Patents on Environmental Technologies, Financial Development, and Environmental Degradation in Sweden: Evidence from Novel Fourier-Based Approaches. Sustainability, 15(1), Article 1. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15010302
  50. Sgaravatti, G., Tagliapietra, S., & Trasi, C. (2024). Re-energising Europe’s global green reach. Bruegel Policy Brief.
  51. Sherwood, R. M. (2019). Intellectual property and economic development. Routledge.
  52. Shin, Y.-J., Midgley, G.F., Archer, E.R., Arneth, A., Barnes, D.K., Chan, L., Hashimoto, S., Hoegh-Guldberg, O., Insarov, G., Leadley, P., & others. (2022). Actions to halt biodiversity loss generally benefit the climate. Global Change Biology, 28(9), 2846-2874. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.16109
  53. Silva, F., & Cortez, M.C. (2016). The performance of US and European green funds in different market conditions. Journal of Cleaner Production, 135, 558-566. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.06.112
  54. Sohag, K., Begum, R.A., Abdullah, S.M.S., & Jaafar, M. (2015). Dynamics of energy use, technological innovation, economic growth and trade openness in Malaysia. Energy, 90, 1497-1507. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2015.06.101
  55. Squicciarini, M., Dernis, H., & Criscuolo, C. (2013). Measuring patent quality: Indicators of technological and economic value. https://doi.org/10.1787/5k4522wkw1r8-en
  56. Stockmann, N. (2024). Now they can cope? The Green Deal and the contested meaning of sustainability in EU sectoral governance. Frontiers in Political Science, 6, 1356897. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpos.2024.1356897
  57. Su, H.-N., & Moaniba, I.M. (2017). Does innovation respond to climate change? Empirical evidence from patents and greenhouse gas emissions. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 122, 49-62. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2017.04.017
  58. Sun, Y., Razzaq, A., Sun, H., & Irfan, M. (2022). The asymmetric influence of renewable energy and green innovation on carbon neutrality in China: Analysis from non-linear ARDL model. Renewable Energy, 193, 334-343. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2022.04.159
  59. Suproń, B. (2025). Environmental pollution and economic growth in the European Union countries: A systematic literature review. Economics and Business Review, 11(1), 7-30. https://doi.org/10.18559/ebr.2025.1.1777
  60. Tomaszewski, K. (2020). The Polish road to the new European Green Deal – challenges and threats to the national energy policy. Polityka Energetyczna – Energy Policy Journal, 23(2), 5-18. https://doi.org/10.33223/epj/123411
  61. Wang, Q., Li, Y., & Li, R. (2024). Rethinking the environmental Kuznets curve hypothesis across 214 countries: The impacts of 12 economic, institutional, technological, resource, and social factors. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, 11(1), 1-19. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-024-02736-9
  62. Yilanci, V., & Pata, U.K. (2020). Investigating the EKC hypothesis for China: The role of economic complexity on ecological footprint. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 27(26), 32683-32694. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-020-09434-4
  63. Yusuf, M.F., Ashari, H., & Razalli, R. (2018). Environmental Technological Innovation and Its Contribution to Sustainable Development. International Journal of Technology, 9(8), 1569. https://doi.org/10.14716/ijotech.v.9i82748
  64. Zheng, S., Irfan, M., Ai, F., & Al-Faryan, M.A.S. (2023). Do renewable energy, urbanisation, and natural resources enhance environmental quality in China? Evidence from novel bootstrap Fourier Granger causality in quantiles. Resources Policy, 81, 103354. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resourpol.2023.103354

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.