sustainability

Article
Examining the Effect of Privatization on Renewable Energy
Consumption in the Digital Economy under Economic
Patriotism: A Nonlinear Perspective
Jianjun Kang 1, * and Delin Huang 2

1 School of Marxism, China University of Geosciences (Wuhan), Lumo Road 388, Wuhan 430074, China
2 School of Public Administration, China University of Geosciences (Wuhan), Lumo Road 388,
Wuhan 430074, China; dlhuang1030@163.com
* Correspondence: luckkjj@126.com

Abstract: This study is an effort to investigate the asymmetric effects of privatization and the digital
economy on renewable energy consumption. The nonlinear quantile autoregressive distributed
lag (QARDL) technique is used to estimate short and long-run analysis. Findings of the nonlinear
QARDL model posit that the long-run positive shock in privatization promotes renewable energy
consumption by increasing renewable energy consumption, while the long-run negative shock in
privatization demotes renewable energy consumption by reducing renewable energy consumption.
In the short run, the positive shock of privatization does not significantly impact renewable energy
consumption, while the negative shock of privatization reduces renewable energy consumption.
Moreover, information and communications technology (ICT), economic development, and financial
development increase renewable energy consumption in the long run; however, in the short-run only
financial development helps increase renewable energy consumption. The Wald test confirms the
asymmetric impact of privatization on renewable energy consumption only in the long run. Based
on these results, policymakers should thus take into account both positive and negative shocks in
privatization when developing policies to encourage pro-environmental behavior.

Citation: Kang, J.; Huang, D.

Keywords: privatization; renewable energy consumption; nonlinear QARDL
Examining the Effect of Privatization
on Renewable Energy Consumption
in the Digital Economy under
Economic Patriotism: A Nonlinear
1. Introduction
Perspective. Sustainability 2023, 15,
5864. https://doi.org/10.3390/ Anthropogenic impacts are the primary cause of environmental issues; thus, they
su15075864 must be taken into account when trying to find solutions [1,2]. As the primary vectors
of human activity, numerous institutions and organizations have implemented a wide
Academic Editors: Ilhan Ozturk
range of environmental management practices in an effort to save the planet. In reality,
and Usama Al-Mulali
nevertheless, the majority of these institutions and businesses only care about technological
Received: 26 February 2023 improvements and management improvement [3], rather than guiding and encouragement
Revised: 16 March 2023 of workers’ “green” or “pro-environmental behavior” (PEB). Employees’ daily PEBs are
Accepted: 20 March 2023 especially helpful in reducing the negative effects of business operations in the commercial
Published: 28 March 2023 setting [4], since they invest approximately a third of their days working. This supports
businesses’ efforts to protect the effectiveness of the broader atmosphere and natural
capital [5]. Recent research on China’s smog issue appears to confirm this hope. Lu et al. [6]
Copyright: © 2023 by the authors.
found that “corporate green” and pollution reduction were greatly aided by employees’
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
personal environmental knowledge and actions at work (i.e., their personal environmental
This article is an open access article footprint, or PEB).
distributed under the terms and In a broader sense, there are two main types of organizations: private and government.
conditions of the Creative Commons Since private firms dominate the corporate sector, they can play a crucial role in promoting
Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// PEB in society. International financial institutions (IFIs) often enforce structural reform
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ plans, including privatization initiatives in developing nations [7]. It has been stated that
4.0/). the superior resource distribution and more transparent principal-agent interactions at

Sustainability 2023, 15, 5864. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15075864 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability

Sustainability 2023, 15, 5864 2 of 13

private companies explain why they have been more successful than their public sector
counterparts. Experts in both high- and low-income nations have focused on the question
of whether or not privatization boosts business effectiveness [8]. Research results have
been inconsistent and contentious thus far. In the past, researchers have mostly looked
at the financial implications of various performance metrics at both the macro and micro
levels. Recent years have seen an increase in the number of studies examining social di-
mensions of success alongside traditional financial and non-financial metrics. Nevertheless,
academics’ narrow focus has prevented them from assessing the economic, cultural, and
ecological consequences of privatization at the organizational level [9,10]. The research
falls short, most obviously, in its failure to analyze how privatization affects PEB within the
corporate framework.
In the early 1980s, the word “privatization” entered the general lexicon. Before this point,
the selling of government companies was often described as “denationalization” [11,12]. As
a key economic strategy, privatization refers to the transfer of entrepreneurship and/or
control from the government to the private sector [13]. Since the 1980s, it has been ex-
tensively utilized throughout the globe to address a broad range of management, legal,
cultural, and economic issues. The privatization of state-owned enterprises (SOEs) has
been advocated by the World Bank, the IMF, and other foreign funders as a means of
addressing economic woes and the distinctive troubles (such as wastefulness, bureaucratic
red tape, political participation, and mismanagement) faced by least developed countries
(LDCs) [14]. Structural adjustment plans that include privatization are a prerequisite for
providing financial assistance to LDCs with failing economies [15].
Efficiency advantages in production and resource allocation are the basic theory for
privatization’s support. When compared to state-owned enterprises (SOEs), which typ-
ically have various competing goals (such as financial, cultural, and political), private
sector businesses are thought to be significantly productive because their sole purpose is
profitability, allowing them to implement efficiency-boosting technologies. To privatize, the
government must agree to the organization’s strategy (i.e., profitability) and the industry’s
behavior. Any other governmental goal that a public corporation could have been told to
undertake should subsequently be addressed via taxation or subsidization measures, or
abandoned entirely [16]. Furthermore, the administration of private enterprises seems to be
more driven toward performance in comparison to the administration of SOEs, which is de-
motivated, low rewarded, and insufficiently overseen owing to the lack of understanding of
the principal-agent link and property ownership. For this reason, proponents of ownership
transfers expect an increase in productive and distributive efficiency as a result of tighter
organizational control [17]. Innovation and productivity have benefited from the transition
from public to private ownership. These changes are predicted to boost the economy, which
in turn would benefit society and the environment and develop PEB in society [18].
Privatization can affect renewable energy consumption through several transmission
mechanisms. Firstly, privatization can increase investment in renewable energy projects
by creating opportunities for private sector participation. Private companies are generally
more willing to invest in renewable energy projects because of the potential for long-
term profitability. Privatization can also increase access to financing for renewable energy
projects by allowing private companies to access capital markets [19]. Secondly, privatiza-
tion can create competition in the renewable energy market, leading to lower prices and
increased consumption. Competition can also encourage innovation and technological
advancements in renewable energy, leading to increased efficiency and lower costs [20].
Thirdly, privatization can affect the regulatory framework for renewable energy consump-
tion. Private companies may push for policies that favor renewable energy, such as feed-in
tariffs or net metering, to encourage the growth of the market. Privatization can also lead
to changes in regulatory frameworks that reduce barriers to entry for renewable energy
companies. Lastly, privatization can impact energy security and reliability, which can in
turn impact renewable energy consumption. Privatization can lead to improved energy se-
curity and reliability by promoting investment in new infrastructure and technologies [21].
Sustainability 2023, 15, 5864 3 of 13

This can make it easier to integrate renewable energy into the grid, leading to increased
consumption. Economic patriotism, which refers to the promotion of domestic industries
and the protection of national interests, can also influence the adoption of renewable energy
sources [22]. China encourages the use of domestically produced renewable energy sources,
such as solar panels and wind turbines. Additionally, promoting renewable energy can
reduce dependence on foreign oil and gas imports, which can help strengthen national
security and reduce trade deficits. The Chinese government has provided significant fi-
nancial and policy support to domestic renewable energy companies, such as solar panel
manufacturers, wind turbine producers, and energy storage system providers [23].
Privatization has been widely discussed as a potential driver of renewable energy
consumption. The argument is that privatization can bring new investments and com-
petition to the energy sector, which can lead to more efficient and innovative renewable
energy production [24]. While there is some disagreement about the specific impact of
privatization on renewable energy consumption, many studies have examined this relation-
ship. One such study by Torriti [25] investigated the impact of privatization on renewable
energy consumption in Europe. The study found that privatization had a positive impact
on renewable energy consumption in countries with well-established renewable energy
policies, but the relationship was not significant in countries without such policies. The
study concluded that privatization can play an important role in promoting renewable
energy consumption, but only in the presence of effective policies. Similarly, a study by
Nicolli & Vona [26] examined the impact of privatization on renewable energy consump-
tion in emerging markets. The study found that privatization had a positive impact on
renewable energy consumption in emerging markets, particularly in countries with strong
regulatory frameworks and government support for renewable energy. Liza et al. [27] ar-
gued that privatization could lead to a focus on short-term profit maximization rather than
long-term investment in renewable energy. The authors suggested that the government
should maintain some level of control over the energy sector to ensure that renewable
energy is prioritized. Despite significant efforts, we are unable to find a single study ex-
amining the impact of privatization on renewable energy consumption specifically in the
context of China.
Progress in computing has been steady since the 1990s. New forms of economic activity,
including the digital economy, have emerged as a result of developments in artificial
intelligence (AI), blockchain, and 5G networks [28]. The detection, screening, processing,
preservation, and application of big data constitutes the digital economy, an economic
structure that leads and accomplishes speedy optimum distribution and rejuvenation of
resources, attains “high-quality economic growth”, and promotes PEB not only within the
corporate sector but in the whole society [29]. Entrepreneurs, customers, and authorities
across all economic sectors all over the globe realize the importance of ICT. Most every
large economy in the world has identified “green” and “digital” as the two buzzwords of
important policy orientations for moving towards PEB. ICT and digitalization, in general,
have opened up new doors for sustainable practices in the environmental and economic
spheres and paved the way for business firms and the general public to follow PEB [30].
This research contributes to the literature by examining the impact of privatization on
PEB in the age of the digital economy. Previous research on privatization’s effects often
looked at either the broad economic effects or the specific financial and managerial results.
In the wake of privatization, little is known about how private sector development has
impacted PEB in the digital age. This study also includes an in-depth investigation of
the effects of privatization on pro-environmental behavior in the digital economy. Thus,
this study is a valuable addition to the current literature as it provides an empirical and
theoretical base for upcoming studies. Another key contribution of this study is that
it provides long-run and short-run dynamics under the QARDL approach. Lastly, the
policy suggestions based on the results can prove vital for promoting renewable energy
transitions in China. By understanding the impact of privatization on renewable energy
consumption in China, this study seeks to provide insights that can inform future policy
Sustainability 2023, 15, 5864 4 of 13

decisions in the country’s efforts to combat air pollution and climate change. The study
can be useful in practical applicability from the perspective of the three main pillars of
sustainability: economic viability, environmental protection, and social equity. The study
can help academics and policymakers to assess the economic and environmental benefits
of the privatization of renewable energy.

2. Models and Methods

Renewable energy has emerged as a critical component of the energy mix due to its
potential to mitigate climate change and promote sustainable development. The renewable
energy sector has undergone significant transformation in recent years due to increased
investment, technological advancements, and policy support. The relationship between
privatization and renewable energy consumption has become a crucial research area for
scholars and policymakers [31]. Several theoretical perspectives have been proposed to
explain the relationship between privatization and renewable energy consumption. One
theoretical perspective is the property rights theory, which argues that private ownership of
energy assets leads to greater efficiency and investment in the energy sector [32]. According
to this theory, private firms are better equipped to allocate resources efficiently, make
long-term investments, and innovate in the renewable energy sector. Similarly, ICT has the
potential to play a significant role in promoting the use of renewable energy sources and
reducing reliance on non-renewable sources of energy [33]. The ecological modernization
theory suggests that ICT and social change can be used to address environmental challenges
and achieve sustainable development [34]. This theory suggests that the use of ICT can
facilitate the integration and coordination of renewable energy technologies, such as solar
and wind energy. Furthermore, this theory also suggests that ICT can play a role in
facilitating the transition from fossil fuels to renewable energy sources.
In this study, we use a technique called QARDL to analyze the data. To explore the
long-run and short-run asymmetries among concerning variables, we have employed the
QARDL technique proposed by Cho et al. [35]. The QARDL approach is dominant in linear
models, for several reasons. The first advantage of adopting this technique is that it takes
into account the locational asymmetries in which factors and findings may be conditional
on the dependent variable. For this reason, QARDL is considered more appropriate, as
the linear ARDL technique cannot capture the asymmetric association among variables.
Another advantage is that the QARDL approach considers the long-run dynamics as well
as short-run dynamics over different quantile ranges. The QARDL methodology is a sci-
entifically sound approach to modeling non-stationary time series data with structural
breaks. The latest literature uses QARDL to investigate a wide range of economic and
financial phenomena [36]. The use of the nonlinear QARDL approach is a relatively new
and advanced technique for analyzing time series data (see Figure 1). QARDL is considered
a workhorse approach in energy economics; it has several advantages and potential appli-
cations. Depending on these trustworthy sets of data, it is shown that the QARDL approach
is the most efficient at comprehending the asymmetric connection between renewable
energy demand and its privatization, ICT diffusion, economic development, and financial
development. The basic model is:

n1 n2 n3 n4 n5
REC t = µ + ∑ σ RECi RECt−i + ∑ σ PRIVi PRIVt−i + ∑ σ ICTi ICTt−i + ∑ σ EDi EDt−i + ∑ σ FDi FDt−i + ε t (1)
i =1 i =0 i =0 i =0 i =0

where ε t is explained as RECt -E[RECt/Ft − 1] with Ft − 1 as the smallest σ–field made by

(PRIVt , ICTt , EDt , FDt , PRIVt−1 , ICTt −1 , EDt −1 , FDt −1 }, and n1 . . . n5 represents the lag
orders for variables. In Equation (1), privatization, ICT diffusion, economic development,
and financial development are represented by PRIVt , ICTt , EDt , FDt , respectively; while
RECt represents renewable energy consumption. Following the approach of Cho et al. [24],
we have to reformat basic Equation (1) in the quantile ARDL format:
Sustainability 2023, 15, x FOR PEER REVIEW 5 of 14

Sustainability 2023, 15, 5864 5 of 13

variables. In Equation (1), privatization, ICT diffusion, economic development, and finan-
cial development are represented by PRIVt, ICTt, EDt, FDt, respectively; while RECt repre-
sents renewable energy consumption. Following the approach of Cho et al. [24], we have
n1 n2 n3 n4
Q RECt = µ(τ )+ to
∑ reformat basic
σ RECi (τ ) REC Equation (1) in the quantile ARDL format:
t−i + ∑ σ PRIVi ( τ ) PRIVt−i + ∑ σ ICTi ( τ ) ICTt−i + ∑ σ EDi ( τ ) EDt−i
i =1 i =0 i =0 i =0
(2)
n5
𝑄 = 𝜇(𝜏) + 𝜎 + ∑(𝜏)𝑅𝐸𝐶 +t−i +𝜎ε t (τ ) (𝜏) 𝑃𝑅𝐼𝑉
σ FDi (τ ) FD + 𝜎 (𝜏)𝐼𝐶𝑇 + 𝜎 (𝜏)𝐸𝐷
i =0

where εt(τ) = RECt − QRECt(τ/Ft −1) and QRECt (τ/Ft − 1), and the level of quantile is (2)
represented by the range 0 < τ < 1. Given the possibility of serial correlation in Equation (2),
+ (𝜏)𝐹𝐷 QARDL
𝜎 a nonlinear + 𝜀 (𝜏) model can be formulated, with our analysis being specifically geared
towards examining the nonlinearity assumption, as previously indicated. The approach
of Shin et al. [37] involves using the partial sum procedure to partition the PRIV variable
where
into εt(τ) = RECt
positive − QRECt(τ/Ft
and negative −1) and
components. WeQRECt(τ/Ft − 1), and
have decomposed onlythe level of quantile
privatization is rep-
(PRIV) for
resented by the
nonlinear range 0 < τ < 1. Given the possibility of serial correlation in Equation (2), a
analysis.
nonlinear QARDL model can be formulated, with our analysis being specifically geared
t t
towards examining PRIV the nonlinearity assumption, as previously
+ indicated. The approach
t = ∑ ∆PRIV t = ∑ max ( ∆PRIV t , 0)
+ +
(3a)
of Shin et al. [37] involves usingn=the
1 partial sum
n=1procedure to partition the PRIV variable
into positive and negative components. We have decomposed only privatization (PRIV)
t t
for nonlinear analysis.PRIV − t = ∑ ∆PRIV − t = ∑ min (∆PRIV − t , 0) (3b)
n =1 n =1

Figure 1. Methodology framework.

Figure 1. Methodology framework.
We then move back to Equation (2) and replace the positive and negative changes of
PRIV to arrive at:

Q ∆RECt = µ+ ρRECt−1 + β+ PRIV PRIV + t−1 + β− PRIV PRIV − t−1 + β ICT ICTt−1 + β ED EDt−1 + β FD FDt−1
𝑃𝑅𝐼𝑉 = ∆𝑃𝑅𝐼𝑉 = 𝑚𝑎𝑥 (∆𝑃𝑅𝐼𝑉 , 0) (3a)
n1 n2 n3
+ ∑ π RECi ∆RECt−i + ∑ π + PRIVi ∆PRIV t−i
+ + ∑ π −on GE een ods. Contrariwise, −
PRIVi ∆PRIV t−i
i =1 k =0 k =0 (4)
n4 n5 n4
+ ∑ π ICTi ∆ICTt−i + ∑ π EDi ∆EDt−i + ∑ π FDi ∆FDt−i + ε t (τ )
i =0 𝑃𝑅𝐼𝑉
i =0 = ∆𝑃𝑅𝐼𝑉
i =0 = 𝑚𝑖𝑛 (∆𝑃𝑅𝐼𝑉 , 0) (3b)
Extending Equation (2) to conform to the QARDL-ECM format within the context of
nonlinear
We thenQARDL can eliminate
move back prior (2)
to Equation correlations by projecting
and replace ε t onto
the positive andrelevant variables.
negative changes of
Thus, the model can be expressed in its nonlinear QARDL-ECM version as follows:
PRIV to arrive at:
Sustainability 2023, 15, 5864 6 of 13

Q ∆RECt = µ(τ )+ ρ(τ )( RECt−1 − β+ PRIV (τ ) PRIV + t−1 − β− PRIV (τ ) PRIV − t−1 − β ICT (τ ) ICTt−1 − β ED (τ ) EDt−1
n1 n2
− β FD (τ ) FDt−1 ) + ∑ π RECi ∆RECt−i + ∑ π +on GE een ods. Contrariwise, PRIVi ( τ ) ∆PRIV t−i
+
i =1 i =0
n3 n4 n5 (5)
+ ∑ π −on GE een ods. Contrariwise, −
PRIVi ( τ ) ∆PRIV t−i + ∑ π ICTi (τ )∆ICTt−i + ∑ π EDi (τ )∆EDt−i
i =0 i =0 i =0
n6
+ ∑ π FDi (τ )∆FDt−i + ε t (τ )
i =0

The cumulative short-run effect of the lag of renewable energy consumption (REC) on
current emanation is measured by π ∗ ∑nj=1 π j . Regarding cumulative short-run dynam-
ics of PRIV + t , PRIV − t , ICTt , EDt , and FDt are represented by π ∗ ∑n2 n3
j =1 π j , π ∗ ∑ j =1 π j ,
π ∗ ∑n4 n5 n6
j=1 π j , π ∗ ∑ j=1 π j , π ∗ ∑ j=1 π j , respectively. Similar, the cointegration among the
long-run variables of privatization, ICT diffusion, economic development, and financial
β+ PRIV β− PRIV
development are described with the help of β+ PRIV ∗ = − p , β− PRIV ∗ = − p ,
βICT βED βFD
β ICT ∗ = − p , β ED ∗ = − p , and β FD ∗ = − p , correspondingly. In Equation (5),
a substantial negative estimation is necessary for the parameter (ρ) that is linked to the
REC variable. Using the Wald test, we examined the nonlinear effects of the PRIV variable
on REC in both the short and long run. If the Wald test rejects the null hypothesis of
β+ PRIV = β− PRIV (π + PRIV = π − PRIV ), then we can establish the presence of asymmetric
effects in the long run (or short run).

3. Data and Descriptive Analysis

Table 1 describes the details of the variables to be used in the regression. The dependent
variable in our model is pro-environmental behavior, which is captured through renewable
energy consumption (REC). The total consumption of energy from all sources is taken
to measure this variable and the data series is collected from the energy information
administration (EIA). Privatization and digitalization are the main focused variables in
our model. Privatization (PRIV) is measured through gross fixed capital formation from
private sector as % of GDP. The digital economy impact is measured through ICT users
as % of total population. The data series for PRIV and ICT are assembled from the world
development indicators (WDI). Following existing literature, we have included economic
development (ED) and financial development (FD) as control variables in our model. ED is
measured by GDP per capita, while an index is used to measure financial development.
Data series for ED are collected from the WDI and data series for FD are collected from the
International Monetary Fund (IMF). The data assembling procedure has two stages. In the
first stage, annual time series data is collected for the period 1993–2020. In the next stage,
the annual data series are transformed into quarterly data series by employing the quadratic
match-sum method. Table 1 also displays the summary of descriptive statistics. Descriptive
statistics provide results for the following tests: mean, median, skewness, Jarque–Bera (J-B)
stat, and kurtosis. The mean and standard deviation tests provide positive values for REC,
PRIV, ICT, ED, and FD. The J–B test rejects the null hypothesis of normality for all series
confirming the applicability of the nonlinear QARDL regression technique.

Table 1. Definations and results of descriptive statistics.

Std. Jarque–
Variables Definations Mean Median Maximum Minimum Skewness Kurtosis Bera Prob.
Dev.
Total energy consumption
REC from nuclear, renewables, and 1.702 1.603 3.063 0.512 0.876 0.108 1.538 9.833 0.007 EIA
other (quad Btu)
Gross fixed capital formation,
PRIV 3.533 3.550 3.687 3.333 0.109 −0.227 1.766 7.781 0.020 WDI
private sector (% of GDP)
Individuals using the Internet
ICT 1.544 2.775 4.292 −7.401 3.133 −1.363 3.698 35.617 0.000 WDI
(% of population)
ED GDP per capita (current US$) 7.867 7.899 9.260 6.071 1.020 −0.070 1.493 10.302 0.006 WDI
FD Financial development index 0.484 0.486 0.638 0.337 0.104 0.135 1.556 9.711 0.008 IMF
Sustainability 2023, 15, 5864 7 of 13

4. Empirical Results and Discussion

4.1. Empirical Results
Table 2 outlines the results of unit root tests. Our study used the ADF test and the
ZA test for checking the unit root properties for REC, PRIV, ICT, ED, and FD series. Both
tests produce similar outcomes. The stationarity of the ICT series at level is confirmed
by both unit root tests, while the stationarity of REC, PRIV, ED, and FD is confirmed at
first difference. Nonetheless, no series exhibits stationarity at the second difference. Thus,
the findings of the Augmented Dickey–Fuller (ADF) and Zivot–Andrews (ZA) unit root
tests are fulfilling the pre-requisite for using a nonlinear QARDL approach for regression
analysis. The regression results of the nonlinear QARDL model is provided in Table 3.
Table 3 also provides the results of the speed of adjustment parameter that confirm the
convergence possibility among variables. The speed of adjustment parameters are found
significant at all quantiles. The negative sign associated with error correction model (ECM)
parameters confirm the convergence of concerned variables in the long run.

Table 2. Results of unit root test.

ADF ZA
I(0) I(1) Decision I(0) Break Date I(1) Break Date Decision
REC −1.546 −3.452 ** I(1) −3.021 2003 Q1 −6.302 *** 1997 Q3 I(1)
PRIV −1.658 −3.235 *** I(1) −3.014 2007 Q2 −5.324 *** 1997 Q3 I(1)
ICT −9.325 *** I(0) −11.25 *** 1997 Q2 I(0)
ED −0.854 −2.758 * I(1) −3.189 2003 Q1 −4.857 *** 1995 Q1 I(1)
FD −0.721 −2.873 * I(1) −2.854 2005 Q1 −5.542 *** 1996 Q1 I(1)
Note: *** p < 0.01; ** p < 0.05; * p < 0.1.

Table 3. Results of nonlinear QARDL.

ECM Constant Long-Run Estimates Short-Run Estimates

Quantiles ρ(τ ) τ β+ PRIV (τ ) β− PRIV (τ ) β ICT (τ ) β ED (τ ) β FD (τ ) π + PRIV (τ ) π − PRIV (τ π0ICT (τ ) π1ICT (τ ) πED (τ ) π0FD (τ ) π1FD (τ )
0.05 −0.526 ** 3.761 ** 0.789 0.949 0.014 0.519 ** 1.733 0.050 0.206 0.072 0.060 0.029 0.079 0.500
(−2.256) (2.502) (0.642) (0.943) (0.927) (2.376) (1.308) (0.165) (1.120) (0.220) (0.193) (1.348) (0.113) (0.750)
0.10 −0.358 *** 3.665 ** 0.868 1.331 0.014 0.505 ** 1.577 0.023 0.232 0.030 0.037 0.024 0.212 0.833
(−3.194) (2.366) (0.662) (1.196) (0.893) (2.107) (1.005) (0.002) (1.583) (0.636) (0.822) (1.241) (0.666) (0.982)
0.20 −0.330 ** 4.275 *** 0.863* 1.055 0.022 0.663 *** 0.522 0.014 0.359 0.022 0.032 0.013 0.524 0.976
(−2.473) (8.085) (1.731) (1.576) (1.284) (6.523) (0.699) (0.764) (1.633) (0.390) (0.586) (1.018) (1.187) (1.372)
0.30 −0.280 ** 4.392 *** 0.740 ** 1.912 *** 0.021 0.722 *** 0.460 0.135 0.425 ** 0.008 0.003 0.005 0.738 1.040
(−2.092) (13.13) (2.369) (4.380) (1.265) (9.261) (0.602) (0.156) (2.379) (0.133) (0.047) (0.635) (1.350) (1.170)
0.40 −0.264 ** 4.545 *** 0.777 ** 2.071 *** 0.037 ** 0.766 *** 0.846 0.137 0.373 *** 0.002 0.011 0.007 0.922 * 1.284 **
(−2.242) (13.33) (2.449) (5.633) (1.988) (10.24) (1.244) (0.318) (4.045) (0.025) (0.215) (1.065) (1.795) (2.406)
0.50 −0.267 ** 4.512 *** 0.807 ** 2.182 *** 0.047 *** 0.772 *** 1.006 * 0.198 0.304 *** 0.004 0.007 0.002 0.935 * 1.173 **
(−2.470) (11.71) (2.446) (7.251) (4.885) (10.14) (1.843) (0.485) (3.206) (0.037) (0.153) (0.356) (1.906) (2.289)
0.60 −0.264 ** 3.939 *** 1.167 *** 2.245 *** 0.042 *** 0.684 *** 0.953 * 0.257 0.261 ** 0.009 0.017 0.001 1.043 ** 1.235 **
(−2.549) (10.32) (3.242) (7.800) (4.419) (9.397) (1.915) (0.612) (2.416) (0.203) (0.378) (0.190) (2.002) (2.261)
0.70 −0.264 ** 3.772 *** 1.405 *** 2.170 *** 0.050 *** 0.662 *** 0.974 * 0.379 0.280 ** 0.038 0.046 0.005 1.309 *** 1.472 ***
(−2.573) (9.806) (3.493) (7.244) (5.508) (9.152) (1.843) (0.764) (2.040) (0.776) (0.949) (0.873) (3.102) (5.036)
0.80 −0.269 ** 3.681 *** 1.809 *** 2.225 *** 0.072 *** 0.660 *** 1.245 ** 0.597 0.228 * 0.070 0.076 0.007 1.429 *** 1.576 ***
(−2.579) (7.429) (2.780) (6.060) (6.368) (7.719) (2.158) (1.074) (1.813) (1.045) (1.020) (1.444) (4.437) (4.932)
0.90 −0.298 * 3.579 *** 1.867 *** 2.263 *** 0.074 *** 0.642 *** 1.172 ** 0.426 0.050 * 0.071 0.073 0.010 * 1.491 *** 1.585 ***
(−1.717) (8.565) (3.391) (7.378) (8.240) (8.949) (2.447) (1.142) (1.758) (1.203) (1.294) (1.912) (4.649) (5.101)
0.95 −0.378 *** 3.531 *** 1.869 *** 2.384 *** 0.078 *** 0.630 *** 1.107 *** 0.667 0.053* 0.081 0.092 0.046 ** 1.419 *** 0.902 ***
(−2.695) (9.859) (4.328) (8.849) (9.414) (10.22) (2.793) (1.546) (1.682) (1.389) (1.637) (1.973) (3.010) (3.179)

Note: *** p < 0.01; ** p < 0.05; * p < 0.1.

The long-run results show that the coefficient estimates of the positive shock of PRIV
are found positive and significant at quantiles 0.20 to 0.95. This shows that positive shock
in PRIV positively enhances REC in the long run, but the nexus between the positive shock
of PRIV and REC is reported as insignificant at quantiles 0.05 and 0.10. The coefficient
estimates of the negative shock of PRIV are found negative and significant at quantiles
0.30 to 0.95. This shows that negative shock in PRIV tends to reduce REC in the long run.
However, the negative shock of PRIV reports no impact on REC at quantiles 0.05 to 0.20
in the long run. These results display that positive shock in PRIV enhances REC while
negative shock in PRIV declines REC in the long run. In short, our main findings suggest
that a positive shock in privatization promotes pro-environmental behavior. In the long
run, the coefficient estimates for ICT are significant and positive across quantiles ranging
from 0.40 to 0.95. It shows that an upsurge in ICT positively enhances REC in the long
Sustainability 2023, 15, 5864 8 of 13

run. However, the connotation between ICT and REC is observed insignificant at quantiles
0.05 to 0.30 in the long run. Our findings suggest that digitalization is crucial in promoting
pro-environmental behavior.
The results in Table 3 report that ED estimates are observed significantly positive at all
quantiles in the long run. This portrays the positive role of ED in enhancing REC in the long
run at all intensities of ED. FD estimates are observed significantly positive at quantiles 0.50
to 0.95 in the long run. This shows that enhancement in FD escalates REC in the long run at
quantiles 0.50 to 0.95, but the association between FD and REC is observed as insignificant
at quantiles 0.05 to 0.40 in the long run. In the short run, the coefficient estimates for
positive shock in PRIV are observed statistically insignificant at all quantiles, revealing
that positive shock in PRIV produces no influence on REC. However, the estimates of
the negative shock of PRIV are found negative and significant at quantiles 0.30 to 0.95 in
the short-run. This shows that negative shock in PRIV significantly declines REC in the
short run. The coefficient estimates for ICT are found to be statistically insignificant across
all quantiles in the short run, indicating that digitalization has no immediate impact on
REC. However, in the short run, ED estimates are significant and positive at the highest
quantiles, specifically at 0.90 and 0.95. The association between ED and REC is observed as
insignificant at remaining quantiles in the short run. FD estimates are found significant and
positive at quantiles 0.40 to 0.95 in the short-run, depicting that increase in FD enhances
REC in the short-run at these quantiles.
The results of the Wald test are given in Table 4. This test confirms the asymmetries of
variables. The linearity hypothesis is rejected for positive and negative shock in privatiza-
tion in the long run at all quantiles. This confirms the nonlinear dynamics of the positive
and negative shock of privatization for pro-environmental behavior. However, the linearity
hypothesis is rejected for positive and negative shock in privatization in the short-run at
0.95th quantile only. This shows that the dynamic of the positive and negative shock of
privatization are linear in nature in the short-run at remaining quantiles i.e., 0.05 to 0.90.

Table 4. Results of Wald test.

Long-Run Short-Run
(H0: β+ =β− ) (H0: π + =π − )
0.05 6.125 *** 0.254
0.10 7.689 *** 0.321
0.20 17.65 *** 0.356
0.30 28.25 *** 0.412
0.40 31.03 *** 0.231
0.50 35.65 *** 0.072
0.60 39.65 *** 0.061
0.70 41.02 *** 0.051
0.80 31.05 *** 1.302
0.90 28.39 *** 2.031
0.95 25.12 *** 3.452 *
Note: *** p < 0.01; * p < 0.1.

4.2. Results Discussion

This study’s main findings suggest that a positive shock in privatization promotes
pro-environmental behavior. This result is not surprising because, recently, there has been a
widespread phenomenon of privatizing government businesses. The goals of governments
in promoting privatization are also obvious: to boost economic efficiency while easing
the financial pressure of owning loss-making businesses. What is less well known is that
privatization may produce economic and environmental advantages within the right cir-
cumstances, and offers the chance to adopt intentional choices that impact a sustainable
environment [18,27]. Observation and empirical analysis suggest that private businesses
function better in most industries and regions than public organizations in terms of eco-
nomic efficiency, capacity to keep up with the changing business environment and technical
Sustainability 2023, 15, 5864 9 of 13

hurdles, and capability to join new markets [21]. Numerous advancements have been ini-
tiated to impact the environment through improved resource administration, enhanced
access to credit, continued spending of low-carbon technologies, evolutionary development,
prominence of cutting-edge management methods, and enhanced access to markets for
eco-friendly products and services, and thus promote pro-environment behavior [38].
Our findings imply that privatization can lead to increased investment in renewable
energy projects by creating opportunities for private sector participation. Private companies
are generally more willing to invest in renewable energy projects because of the potential
for long-term profitability. This increased investment can lead to the development of more
renewable energy infrastructure and an increase in renewable energy consumption. Our
finding is supported by McGreevy et al. [24], who infers that privatization can create
competition in the renewable energy market, which can lead to lower prices and increased
consumption. Competition can encourage innovation and technological advancements in
renewable energy, leading to increased efficiency and lower costs. This can make renewable
energy more accessible and attractive to consumers. Privatization can lead to changes in
regulatory frameworks that promote the growth of renewable energy [39]. This means that
privatization creates a more favorable environment for renewable energy consumption and
encourages the development of more renewable energy projects. Moreover, privatization
can lead to improved energy security and reliability by promoting investment in new
infrastructure and technologies. This can make it easier to integrate renewable energy into
the grid, leading to increased consumption [40]. Additionally, the diversification of energy
sources can reduce the dependence on traditional fossil fuels, leading to a more sustainable
energy system.
Next, our findings suggest that digitalization is crucial in promoting pro-environmental
behavior. The substitution effect that comes into play as a result of increased use of ICT
eases the shift to environmentally friendly modes of consumption and manufacturing.
Dematerialization, demobilization, and decarbonization are some of these impacts. To
reduce trash, dematerialization converts printed books into digital books, postal mail into
emails, and newspapers into online papers. Demobilization also lowers outdoor activities,
conserves carbon fuels used in automobiles, and cuts carbon pollution. It promotes work-
ing from home instead of coming to the office and enables video conferencing instead of
in-person meetings. The impacts of replacement aid in streamlining industrial procedures,
enhancing energy effectiveness, and achieving decarbonization. It is also claimed that
ICT has more positive net effects than negative ones since its indirect effects outweigh its
direct ones [41]. All these factors are responsible for promoting pro-environment behav-
ior in society. Moreover, our findings are in line with the studies of Chao et al. [25] and
Deshuai et al. [42].
The results of Xu & Ullah [33] show that ICT can enable the development and im-
plementation of energy management systems that optimize the use of renewable energy
sources. This can lead to more efficient and effective use of renewable energy sources, lead-
ing to increased renewable energy consumption. Chang et al. [43] infer that ICT can enable
the development and integration of energy storage systems that increase the flexibility and
reliability of renewable energy sources. These systems use software and hardware solutions
to manage the flow of energy to and from the grid, ensuring that renewable energy is stored
and used efficiently. This can help to overcome the variability and intermittency issues
associated with some renewable energy sources, leading to increased renewable energy
consumption. Chao et al. [36] assert that ICT can enable the development and integration
of distributed energy resources that increase the availability and accessibility of renewable
energy sources. ICT can help to optimize the management and operation of these resources,
leading to increased renewable energy consumption.
Sustainability 2023, 15, 5864 10 of 13

5. Conclusions
Researchers, energy professionals, and environmentalists have all recently acknowl-
edged that climate change presents a major threat to mankind. If the world’s behavior
as a whole would not change, the threat of climate change and global warming will also
remain a serious challenge in the coming years. Therefore, to deal with the issues of global
warming and environmental degradation, it is very important for people worldwide to
change their behavior to make it more environmentally friendly. In this regard, increasing
renewable energy consumption at household and business levels would be a big step
toward pro-environment behavior. Therefore, identifying the elements that might influence
pro-environmental behavior is essential to preventing additional ecosystem damage. The
two key factors that have revolutionized society and affected every area of the economy
are privatization and digitization. However, empirical evidence on the impact of privati-
zation and the digital economy on pro-environment behavior is missing. Therefore, this
study was an effort to investigate the effects of privatization and the digital economy on
pro-environmental behavior. This research also made use of the asymmetry assumption,
which enabled us to explore the effects of privatization’s positive and negative shocks on
pro-environmental behavior.
As a prerequisite for time series data, we examined the variables’ stationary qualities
before moving on to the empirical analysis. The ADF and ZA findings show that every
variable in the study is either I(0) or I. (1). As a result, we used the nonlinear QARDL model,
which is capable of handling these kinds of the mixed ordering of variables. Findings of
the nonlinear QARDL model posit that the long-run positive shock in the privatization
promotes pro-environmental behavior by increasing renewable energy consumption, while
the long-run negative shock in the privatization demotes pro-environmental behavior by
reducing renewable energy consumption. In the short run, the positive shock of privatiza-
tion does not significantly impact pro-environmental behavior, while the negative shock of
privatization reduces pro-environmental behavior. Moreover, ICT, economic development,
and financial development develop pro-environmental behavior in the long run; however,
in the short-run only financial development help increase pro-environmental behavior. The
Wald test confirms the asymmetric impact of privatization on pro-environmental behavior
only in the long run.

5.1. Policy Implications

These results allow us to make some significant policy recommendations. According
to the study’s results, pro-environment behavior reacts differently to privatization’s positive
and negative shocks. Policymakers should thus consider both positive and negative shocks
when developing policies to encourage pro-environmental behavior in the context of
privatization and the pro-environmental nexus. Since the positive change in privatization
promotes pro-environmental behavior, increasing the volume of the private sector is a
viable solution to increase pro-environmental behavior. Thus, the transformation of the
overall structure of the economy away from the government sector is the most viable option
to develop more environmentally-responsible behavior. The government can also invest in
renewable energy infrastructure, research and development, and capacity building. The
government can facilitate competition by ensuring that the market is open and transparent,
and that there are no barriers to entry for new firms. This can encourage private firms
to adopt renewable energy technologies to gain a competitive advantage. Public-private
partnerships can play a vital role in promoting renewable energy. The government can
work with private firms to develop renewable energy projects, sharing the risks and benefits
of the projects. This can help overcome the financing barriers that private firms may face in
investing in renewable energy technologies.
The positive impact of privatization on renewable energy consumption suggests that
policies aimed at promoting private sector participation in renewable energy projects could
be effective in increasing economic viability. Governments could provide incentives for
private companies to invest in renewable energy projects, such as tax breaks, subsidies, or
Sustainability 2023, 15, 5864 11 of 13

loan guarantees. This could lead to increased investment and job creation in the renewable
energy sector, boosting economic viability. Renewable energy consumption can help to
reduce greenhouse gas emissions and mitigate the effects of climate change. Policymakers
could implement policies that promote the development and use of renewable energy
sources, such as feed-in tariffs or renewable portfolio standards. Additionally, policies
aimed at reducing the use of traditional fossil fuels, such as carbon taxes or emissions
trading schemes, could help to protect the environment and promote sustainability. Pol-
icymakers could implement policies aimed at promoting social equity in the renewable
energy sector. For example, policies could be implemented to ensure that the benefits
of renewable energy projects are distributed fairly among all members of society, includ-
ing low-income households and marginalized communities. Additionally, policies could
be implemented to promote access to renewable energy technologies for all members
of society, regardless of socioeconomic status. Additionally, expanding ICT usage in
the economy may hasten the dematerialization and digitalization processes, which are
essential for transforming the nation’s economy into one that is less dependent on cap-
ital resources, and as a result, encouraging pro-environmental behavior. Governments
should promote the use of digital technologies in the energy sector to further enhance the
uptake of renewable energy sources.

5.2. Limitations and Directions

This study relied on data for China at the national level, which may not be represen-
tative of the provincial renewable energy landscape. Future studies should conduct this
analysis for provinces of China. The model used in this study only included a limited num-
ber of variables, which may not fully capture the complexity of the relationship between
privatization, ICT, and renewable energy consumption. Future research could include
additional variables, such as government policies and regulations, to better understand
the factors that influence renewable energy consumption. This study only focused on
the effect of privatization on renewable energy consumption and did not consider other
factors that may influence sustainability in the renewable energy sector. Future research
could investigate the impact of other variables on renewable energy consumption. Future
research could also investigate the role of public-private partnerships in promoting sustain-
ability in the renewable energy sector. Additionally, research could investigate the impact
of renewable energy consumption on other sustainability outcomes, such as social and
economic development.

Author Contributions: Methodology and Formal analysis, J.K.; Data curation, Writing—original
draft, and Writing—review & editing, D.H. All authors have read and agreed to the published version
of the manuscript.
Funding: This research received no external funding.
Institutional Review Board Statement: The study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration
of Helsinki, and approved by the Institutional Review Board of School of Marxism, China University
of Geosciences (Wuhan), China.
Informed Consent Statement: Not applicable.
Data Availability Statement: Data is available on reasonable demand from corresponding author.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References
1. Goudie, A.S. Human Impact on the Natural Environment; Wiley: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2018.
2. Ozturk, I.; Ullah, S. Does digital financial inclusion matter for economic growth and environmental sustainability in OBRI
economies? An empirical analysis. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2022, 185, 106489. [CrossRef]
3. Saberi, S.; Kouhizadeh, M.; Sarkis, J.; Shen, L. Blockchain technology and its relationships to sustainable supply chain management.
Int. J. Prod. Res. 2018, 57, 2117–2135.
Sustainability 2023, 15, 5864 12 of 13

4. Zhang, D.; Tu, Y. Green building, pro-environmental behavior and well-being: Evidence from Singapore. Cities 2021, 108, 102980.
[CrossRef]
5. Martin, L.; White, M.P.; Hunt, A.; Richardson, M.; Pahl, S.; Burt, J. Nature contact, nature connectedness and associations with
health, wellbeing and pro-environmental behaviours. J. Environ. Psychol. 2020, 68, 101389. [CrossRef]
6. Lu, H.; Liu, X.; Chen, H.; Long, R.; Yue, T. Who contributed to “corporation green” in China? A view of public- and private-sphere
pro-environmental behavior among employees. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2017, 120, 166–175. [CrossRef]
7. Uddin, S.; Hopper, T. Accounting For Privatisation In Bangladesh: Testing World Bank Claims. Crit. Perspect. Account. 2003, 14,
739–774. [CrossRef]
8. Sheshinski, E.; Lopez-Calva, L.F. Privatization and Its Benefits: Theory and Evidence. Cesifo Econ. Stud. 2003, 49, 429–459.
[CrossRef]
9. Tian, X. Privatization and economic performance: Evidence from Chinese provinces. Econ. Syst. 2001, 25, 65–77. [CrossRef]
10. Hodge, G.A. Privatization: An International Review of Performance; Routledge: London, UK, 2018.
11. Megginson, W.L.; Netter, J.M. From state to market: A survey of empirical studies on privatization. J. Econ. Lit. 2001, 39, 321–389.
[CrossRef]
12. Savas, E.S. What should government do? Glob. Public Policy Gov. 2021, 1, 98–120. [CrossRef]
13. Shirley, M.M. Privatization in Latin America: Lessons for transitional Europe. World Dev. 1994, 22, 1313–1323. [CrossRef]
14. Adams, S.; Mengistu, B. Privatization, governance and economic development in developing countries. J. Dev. Soc. 2008, 24,
415–438. [CrossRef]
15. Boettke, P.J.; Candela, R.A. Productive specialization, peaceful cooperation and the problem of the predatory state: Lessons from
comparative historical political economy. Public Choice 2020, 182, 331–352. [CrossRef]
16. Yu, P.-Y.; Lai, C.-C. Optimal Privatization and Economic Growth in a Schumpeterian Economy. J. Macroecon. 2020, 64, 103205.
[CrossRef]
17. Faguet, J.-P.; Sánchez, F.; Villaveces, M.-J. The perversion of public land distribution by landed elites: Power, inequality and
development in Colombia. World Dev. 2020, 136, 105036. [CrossRef]
18. Gao, B.; Ozturk, I.; Ullah, S. A new framework to the green economy: Asymmetric role of public-private partnership investment
on environment in selected Asian economies. Econ. Res.-Ekon. Istraživanja 2022, 36, 1960–1971. [CrossRef]
19. Komendantova, N.; Patt, A.; Barras, L.; Battaglini, A. Perception of risks in renewable energy projects: The case of concentrated
solar power in North Africa. Energy Policy 2012, 40, 103–109. [CrossRef]
20. Pollitt, M.G. UK Renewable Energy Policy Since Privatization; Routledge: London, UK, 2010; pp. 268–297.
21. Maulidia, M.; Dargusch, P.; Ashworth, P.; Ardiansyah, F. Rethinking renewable energy targets and electricity sector reform in
Indonesia: A private sector perspective. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2018, 101, 231–247. [CrossRef]
22. Reznikova, N.; Panchenko, V.; Bulatova, O. THE POLICY OF ECONOMIC NATIONALISM: FROM ORIGINS TO NEW VARIA-
TIONS OF ECONOMIC PATRIOTISM. Balt. J. Econ. Stud. 2018, 4, 274–281. [CrossRef]
23. Ming, Z.; Ximei, L.; Yulong, L.; Lilin, P. Review of renewable energy investment and financing in China: Status, mode, issues and
countermeasures. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2014, 31, 23–37. [CrossRef]
24. McGreevy, M.; MacDougall, C.; Fisher, M.; Henley, M.; Baum, F. Expediting a renewable energy transition in a privatised market
via public policy: The case of south Australia 2004-18. Energy Policy 2021, 148, 111940. [CrossRef]
25. Torriti, J. Privatisation and cross-border electricity trade: From internal market to European Supergrid? Energy 2014, 77, 635–640.
[CrossRef]
26. Nicolli, F.; Vona, F. Energy market liberalization and renewable energy policies in OECD countries. Energy Policy 2019, 128,
853–867. [CrossRef]
27. Liza, Z.A.; Aktar, H.; Islam, M.R. Solar energy development and social sustainability: A case study on the Teknaf Solar Power
Plant in Bangladesh. J. Asian Energy Stud. 2020, 4, 1–8. [CrossRef]
28. Lin, B.; Huang, C. How will promoting the digital economy affect electricity intensity? Energy Policy 2023, 173, 113341. [CrossRef]
29. Liu, P.; Teng, M.; Han, C. How does environmental knowledge translate into pro-environmental behaviors?: The mediating role
of environmental attitudes and behavioral intentions. Sci. Total Environ. 2020, 728, 138126. [CrossRef]
30. Chen, J.; Rojniruttikul, N.; Kun, L.Y.; Ullah, S. Management of green economic infrastructure and environmental sustainability in
one belt and road enitiative economies. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2022, 29, 36326–36336. [CrossRef]
31. Kuzemko, C.; Lockwood, M.; Mitchell, C.; Hoggett, R. Governing for sustainable energy system change: Politics, contexts and
contingency. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 2016, 12, 96–105. [CrossRef]
32. Kim, J.; Mahoney, J.T. Property rights theory, transaction costs theory, and agency theory: An organizational economics approach
to strategic management. Manag. Decis. Econ. 2005, 26, 223–242. [CrossRef]
33. Xu, L.; Ullah, S. Evaluating the impacts of digitalization, financial efficiency, and education on renewable energy consumption:
New evidence from China. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2023. ahead of print. [CrossRef]
34. Mol, A.P.; Spaargaren, G. Ecological modernisation theory in debate: A review. Environ. Politi 2000, 9, 17–49. [CrossRef]
35. Cho, J.S.; Kim, T.-H.; Shin, Y. Quantile cointegration in the autoregressive distributed-lag modeling framework. J. Econ. 2015, 188,
281–300. [CrossRef]
36. Chao, T.; Yunbao, X.; Chengbo, D.; Bo, L.; Ullah, S. Financial integration and renewable energy consumption in China: Do
education and digital economy development matter? Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2022, 30, 12944–12952. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Sustainability 2023, 15, 5864 13 of 13

37. Shin, Y.; Yu, B.; Greenwood-Nimmo, M. Modelling Asymmetric Cointegration and Dynamic Multipliers in a Nonlinear ARDL
Framework. In Festschrift in Honor of Peter Schmidt: Econometric Methods and Applications; Sickles, R.C., Horrace, W.C., Eds.;
Springer: New York, NY, USA, 2014; pp. 281–314.
38. Heynen, A.P.; Lant, P.A.; Sridharan, S.; Smart, S.; Greig, C. The role of private sector off-grid actors in addressing India’s energy
poverty: An analysis of selected exemplar firms delivering household energy. Energy Build. 2019, 191, 95–103. [CrossRef]
39. Costa, E.; Wells, P.; Wang, L.; Costa, G. The electric vehicle and renewable energy: Changes in boundary conditions that enhance
business model innovations. J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 333, 130034. [CrossRef]
40. Rahman, A.; Dargusch, P.; Wadley, D. The political economy of oil supply in Indonesia and the implications for renewable energy
development. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2021, 144, 111027. [CrossRef]
41. Lv, Z.; Liu, W.; Xu, T. Evaluating the impact of information and communication technology on renewable energy consumption: A
spatial econometric approach. Renew. Energy 2022, 189, 1–12. [CrossRef]
42. Deshuai, M.; Hui, L.; Ullah, S. Pro-environmental behavior–Renewable energy transitions nexus: Exploring the role of higher
education and information and communications technology diffusion. Front. Psychol. 2022, 13, 1010627. [CrossRef]
43. Chang, L.; Taghizadeh-Hesary, F.; Saydaliev, H.B. How do ICT and renewable energy impact sustainable development? Renew.
Energy 2022, 199, 123–131. [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.