E3S Web of Conferences 449, 04002 (2023) https://doi.org/10.

1051/e3sconf/202344904002
PDSED 2023

The impact of energy consumption, FDI, and

economic growth on 𝐂𝐂𝐂𝐂𝐂𝐂𝐂𝐂𝟐𝟐𝟐𝟐 emissions in Central
Asia. Empirical evidence from panel ARDL
Yuldoshboy Sobirov1,*, Akobir Tukhtamurodov1, Mamurbek Karimov1, Dilmurad Bekjanov2,
Mirzobek Avezov2
1Jeonbuk National University, Department of International Trade, 54896, Jeonju-si, Republic of Korea
2Urgench State University, Kh.Alimdjan Street, 14, 220100, Urgench, Uzbekistan

Abstract. Utilizing Panel ARDL and a panel Granger causality test, this
paper examines the influence of GDP, energy usage, FDI, and trade
openness on carbon dioxide (CO2 ) emissions in three specific Central Asian
countries: Kazakhstan, Kyrgyz Republic, and Uzbekistan, from 1997 to
2021. PMG approach findings indicate that energy usage, FDI, and trade
have a statistically significant positive impact on CO2 emissions, but GDP
has a negative and statistically significant effect on CO2 emissions. In the
short-run, only FDI and energy consumption have statistically significant
impact on CO2 emissions, negative and positive, respectively. Granger non-
causality test also verifies that each variables have a granger cause on CO2
emissions in Central Asian countries.

1 Introduction
Many countries throughout the globe have centred their economic policies on the goal of
achieving growth in their economies that is both stable and sustainable. Nevertheless,
economic expansion may influence climate change and global warming, which are the most
important challenges and worries on a global scale. Increasing Carbon dioxide (CO2 )
concentration and additional heat-trapping gases (GHG) are a by-product of industrialization
and urbanization [1]. Regarding the relationship that exists between CO2 emissions, energy
use, and GDP expansion, most of the research that has been done has arrived at the same
general conclusion. According to this point of view, energy is one of the key resource input
variables in the production process, alongside other components such as land, labour, money,
and entrepreneurial spirit. This perspective suggests that energy is an indispensable and
valuable input factor for resources. Therefore, economic production is affected by the usage
of energy [2]. According to this point of view, the amount of CO2 emissions, which is the
primary contributor to GHG emissions, is determined by both the expansion of the economy
and the use of energy [3].
It is also widely accepted that rising energy demands and developing economies are
intricately linked. The growth hypothesis, the conservation hypothesis, the objectivity

* Corresponding author: [email protected]

© The Authors, published by EDP Sciences. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons
Attribution License 4.0 (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
E3S Web of Conferences 449, 04002 (2023) https://doi.org/10.1051/e3sconf/202344904002
PDSED 2023

hypothesis, and the feedback hypothesis all serve as foundations for studies of the connection
between economic development and energy. Consumption of energy is assumed to be an
instrumental antecedent of economic expansion in the growth hypothesis, along with other
antecedents like capital and labour. This indicates that measures adopted to reduce energy
use would have a negative impact on GDP increase. Because of this, the path of causation
flows from the use of energy to the expansion of the economy.
Huge amounts of research have been done to try to pin down the nature of this connection,
but the results are still vague. Numerous explanations for the correlation between rising
energy use and a flourishing economy have been presented, and they may be categorized into
three broad camps: growth, conservation, and neutral [4-8].
Having achieved economic development is now seen as one of the most essential
components to a country’s economic progress. Growth is a topic that has been, and will
continue to be, the focus of a great deal of research. Numerous economic investigations have
agreed that energy is a significant success determinant [9]. To effectively execute energy
policy, it is crucial to comprehend the connection between economic development and energy
use. The member nations of the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS) have varying
degrees of development, energy consumption, and control of natural resources. Furthermore,
in order to boost their economic development rates, emerging and transition countries engage
in energy-intensive industries [10].
Throughout the course of the previous few decades, a considerable number of empirical
studies have been carried out to study the link that exists between expanding economies and
rising levels of carbon dioxide emissions. Despite this, the link continues to be the subject of
debate among academics and policymakers. Considering above-mentioned, this research tries
to make several empirical contributions with its findings. Firstly, this study examines the
correlation between CO2 emissions, energy use and economic development by expanding
time span. Secondly, the current investigation is an innovative piece of research that focuses
on the relationship between energy use, CO2 emissions and the expansion of the economy in
selected countries, specifically for Kazakhstan, Kyrgyz Republic, and Uzbekistan to analyse
both short- and long-term relationships between the variables under study by applying Panel
ARDL model. This article analyses how economic growth and energy influence CO2
emissions in selected countries. It is anticipated that the empirical results of this research will
facilitate management authorities in establishing effective public policies to improve energy
supply, making this study essential. Furthermore, it will contribute to the existing literature
on how energy use affects economic development in two emerging Central Asian countries.
This paper use panel data analysis to investigate whether CO2 emissions, FDI, trade
openness, energy consumption, and economic growth are related in three distinct Central
Asian countries: Kazakhstan, Kyrgyz Republic, and Uzbekistan from 1997 to 2021.
The paper consists of five sections: Section two provides an overview of the relationships
between CO2 emissions, trade openness, FDI, energy consumption and economic growth in
the countries under the investigation. Empirical research on the connection between FDI,
economic growth, renewable energy consumption and energy use are presented in chapter
three. After providing an explanation of the data and technique used, the empirical findings
are then examined in the following chapter. In the concluding section, several assessments
are carried out considering the results gained via the use of empirical research.

2 Literature review
The existing literature indicates that there has been extensive research on the relationships
between CO2 , FDI, energy use and economic development. However, there is a lack of data
from empirical research that investigates the link between CO2 , FDI, energy use and
economic development in Kazakhstan, Kyrgyz Republic, and Uzbekistan.

2
E3S Web of Conferences 449, 04002 (2023) https://doi.org/10.1051/e3sconf/202344904002
PDSED 2023

A panel of 68 nations was analyzed by Muhammad [11] to determine the relationship

between CO2 emissions, economic growth, and energy consumption using dynamic
regression model and seemingly unrelated regression (SUR) based on the system generalized
method (SGM) and the generalized method of moments (GMM). According to the findings
of the study in the countries, energy consumption can lead to increased CO2 emissions and
economic expansion.
By analyzing quarterly data from 1996 Q1 to 2016 Q4 for the period of 1996 Q1 to 2016
Q4 using an auto-regressive distributed lag (ARDL) model, Mehmood [12] provide three
developing nation-specific analyses, Bangladesh, India, and Pakistan to assess
interdependence between economic development and institutional quality, in addition to
extra control variables, including renewable energy and FDI on CO2 emissions. The findings
of the paper confirm that institutional quality and GDP reduce CO2 emissions.
Depending on aspects like economic structure and rate of economic development, the
effect of energy consumption on economic growth might be quite different from one region
to another. As a result, opinions vary as to which direction energy consumption really causes
GDP growth. There are four competing ideas in the literature that attempt to account for the
correlation between economic expansion and technological advancement: the growth theory,
the protective theory, the objective theory, and the feedback theory [13, 14]. Concisely, the
growth hypothesis predicts that a rising economy would lead to more energy consumption,
hence it follows that a growing economy will need more energy to sustain its development.
In this situation, energy conservation regulations might slow down the economy. However,
it demonstrates that, in the case of single-direction causation (the conventional hypothesis)
between energy consumption and economic development, there is little or no effect of energy
conservation on economic development. Energy use and GDP growth may be connected in
a bidirectional manner, according to the feedback hypothesis. Furthermore, it shows that
energy use and economic growth are not associated, which is consistent with the neutrality
hypothesis, suggesting that the advantages of energy efficiency measures are overstated [15].
Using panel cointegration tests and Panel Dynamic OLS, Umurzakov et al. [16] analyzes
short-term and long-term link between variables in an effort to explore the integration of
economic growth and energy output in post-communist nations between 1995 and 2014. The
empirical analysis revealed that the two variables, energy consumption and economic
expansion, are cointegrated.
Hydroelectricity use and economic progress of seven Latin American nations is analyzed
by Solarin and Ozturk [17] using VAR, GLS, DF, Granger, and Johansen cointegration. The
study examines the period from 1970 to 2012. According to the results of the regression
studies, the usage of hydroelectricity has a favorable effect on the economies of the Latin
American nations being studied.
Utilizing several panel data approaches Inglesi-Lotz [18] was able to evaluate the effect
that the adoption of renewable energy influences the OECD countries’ economic well-being
between the years 1990 and 2010. It appears that renewable energy sources and GDP
expansion are associated in a positive and statistically significant way.
Using the GMM framework over the period of 1990 to 2012, Abdouli and Hammami [19]
conducted a study of the interaction between GDP growth, foreign direct investment, and
energy consumption for 17 countries, including several Middle Eastern and North African
countries. This analysis is performed for a total of 17 countries. The findings indicate a
bidirectional causal link between economic development and FDI, along with an association
between energy consumption and economic growth.
Based on static and GMM econometric models, Muhammad and Khan [20] estimate the
impact of FDI, equity capital (EC), capital, and CO2 on economic development in Asia for
115 origin and 34 destination countries. It has been established empirically that factors such

3
E3S Web of Conferences 449, 04002 (2023) https://doi.org/10.1051/e3sconf/202344904002
PDSED 2023

as FDI inflows and outflows, energy consumption, CO2 emissions, and capital are crucial to
the economic development of Asian countries.
An analysis of urbanization, foreign direct investment, energy consumption and CO2
emissions in seven emerging economies (E7) from 1991 to 2014 was conducted by Li et al.
[21]. He conducted this by using contemporary econometric approaches that are resistant to
the problems of intersectional dependency and the occurrence of heterogeneous slopes to
produce accurate and trustworthy results. According to the findings, both energy
consumption and urbanization had a profound effect on the amount of CO2 effusions in the
nations. Nevertheless, the inflow of FDI helped to reduce the emission of CO2 in the
countries. Moreover, rises in GDP and energy consumption contributed to an increase in E7
nations’ CO2 emissions, resulting in the E7 becoming less ecologically friendly.
By using a model that makes use of dynamic ARDL simulations, Islam et al. [22] examine
the impact that energy consumption, urbanization, innovation, trade, FDI, globalization and
economic growth had on Bangladesh’s CO2 emissions from 1972 to 2016. According to the
findings of the study, globalization, innovation and FDI all have negative effects on CO2
emissions, which results in an improvement in the quality of the environment; on the other
hand, urbanization, energy consumption, trade, and economic growth all have positive effects
on CO2 emissions, which results in an acceleration of environmental deterioration both in the
short and long term.
A vector error correction model is applied to the Granger causality test by Ansari et al.
[23] using yearly data from 1971 to 2013 to investigate the influence of energy consumption,
international commerce, and economic development on global carbon dioxide (CO2 )
emissions for the top CO2 emitters. Based on the results, CO2 emissions and their drivers are
found to be long-term relationships.

3 Data and Methodology

The database maintained by the World Bank serves as the source for the necessary data for
the study. The dataset includes yearly observations beginning in 1997 and ending in 2021.
We take CO2 emissions as a dependent variable, and economic growth, energy consumption,
trade openness, foreign direct investments are taken as independent variables.
Below, we construct a basic model for our empirical analysis:

𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙2,𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 = 𝛽𝛽𝛽𝛽1 𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 + 𝛽𝛽𝛽𝛽2 𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 + 𝛽𝛽𝛽𝛽3 𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 + 𝛽𝛽𝛽𝛽4 𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 + 𝜀𝜀𝜀𝜀𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 (1)
Where, lnco2,it - CO2 emissions, lnGDPit -logarithm of GDP (constant 2015 US$), which
is taken as a proxy for economic growth, lnENERGYit - energy consumption, lnTRADEit -
trade openness, lnFDIit - Foreign direct investment, net inflows (BoP, current US$), and εit -
error term.
To estimate the ARDL model, first the unit root test and then the cointegration test must
be carried out. It is possible to correctly use the ARDL model for short sample periods and
to distinguish between short-run and long-run coefficients. Furthermore, it is useful for
analyzing data across a wider time span. There is a high degree of consistency in the long-
run parameters, but the short-run parameters are √T reliable, according to Pesaran and Shin
[24]. Consequently, equation (1) is converted into a panel ARDL (p,q1 ,q2 ,q3 ,q4 ) equation,
the lag of the dependent variable is represented by p, whereas the lags of independent
variables are represented by q. The equation for the panel’s ARDL may be expressed as
follows:
𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝 𝑞𝑞𝑞𝑞1
𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙2,𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 = 𝛼𝛼𝛼𝛼𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 + ∑𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖=1 𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎1,𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙2,𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖,𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖−𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 + ∑𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖=0 𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎2,𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖,𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖−𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 +
∑𝑞𝑞𝑞𝑞𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖=0
2 𝑞𝑞𝑞𝑞3
𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎3,𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖,𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖−𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 + ∑𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖=0
𝑞𝑞𝑞𝑞4
𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎4,𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖,𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖−𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 + ∑𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖=0 𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎5,𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖,𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖−𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 + 𝜀𝜀𝜀𝜀𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 (2)

4
E3S Web of Conferences 449, 04002 (2023) https://doi.org/10.1051/e3sconf/202344904002
PDSED 2023

Where, i = 1,2,3,...N and t = 1,2,3,...T. Fixed effects are represented by αi , a1 −a 5 are the
coefficients of the independent variables and regressors that have been correlated with each
other over the time period in question, and εit is the error term, depending on the time and
place, it is said to be caused by white noise.
This is the panel error correction (ECM) representation of equation (2):
𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝 𝑞𝑞𝑞𝑞1
𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙2,𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 = 𝛼𝛼𝛼𝛼𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 + ∑𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖=1 𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎1,𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙2,𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖,𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖−𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 + ∑𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖=0 𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎2,𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖,𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖−𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 +
∑𝑞𝑞𝑞𝑞𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖=0
2
𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎3,𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖,𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖−𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 + ∑𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖=0
𝑞𝑞𝑞𝑞3
𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎4,𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖,𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖−𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 + ∑𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖=0
𝑞𝑞𝑞𝑞4
𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎5,𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖,𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖−𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 +
𝛽𝛽𝛽𝛽1,𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙2,𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖,𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖−𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 + 𝛽𝛽𝛽𝛽2,𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖,𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖−1 + 𝛽𝛽𝛽𝛽3,𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖,𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖−1 + 𝛽𝛽𝛽𝛽4,𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖,𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖−1 +
𝛽𝛽𝛽𝛽5,𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖,𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖−1 + 𝜀𝜀𝜀𝜀𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 (3)
Where, ∆ is the first difference of variables. The short-run coefficients are denoted by
a1 −a 5 .While, the long-term indices of CO2 , economic growth, energy consumption, trade
openness and FDI are β1 −β5 , respectively. Long-term associations between the dependent
variables and the regressors have been established in the panel ECM model equation (3):
𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝 𝑞𝑞𝑞𝑞1
𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙∆𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙2,𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 = 𝛼𝛼𝛼𝛼𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 + ∑𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖=1 𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎1,𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙∆𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙2,𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖,𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖−𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 + ∑𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖=0 𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎2,𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙∆𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖,𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖−𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 +
𝑞𝑞𝑞𝑞2 𝑞𝑞𝑞𝑞3 𝑞𝑞𝑞𝑞4
∑𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖=0 𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎3,𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙∆𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖,𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖−𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 + ∑𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖=0 𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎4,𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙∆𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖,𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖−𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 + ∑𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖=0 𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎5,𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙∆𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖,𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖−𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 +
𝜃𝜃𝜃𝜃𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖,𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖−1 + 𝜀𝜀𝜀𝜀𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 (4)
Where, θi is the ECM coefficient that indicates how quickly the long-run equilibrium is
adjusted each year. Given the low number of yearly data, a maximum lag length of three is
selected as the ideal choice for the ECM model’s optimal lag length, which is obtained by
using Akaike’s lag criteria for selection. The pooled mean group methodology, often known
as the PMG technique, is utilized in the estimation of the panel ARDL regression. This is an
estimating method which was developed by Pesaran et al. [25] involves coefficient averaging
and pooling of the coefficients in the estimation process. The above panel technique provides
flexibility group differences in the intercepts, short-run coefficients, and error variances. The
likelihood-based PMG estimator, additionally, forces all group long-run coefficients to be
equal. Consequently, when homogeneity limitation is fulfilled, reliable estimates are
obtained. Moreover, this study demonstrated that the PMG estimate is less vulnerable to
outliers when small cross-sectional samples (N) are used, and that serial autocorrelation may
also be resolved at the same time since small cross-sectional samples are used. This
likelihood-based estimate also takes into account the problem of endogenous variables by
identifying the appropriate lag structures with regard to both dependent and independent
elements.
Before estimating the basic model using a panel dataset, it is important to confirm the
stationarity of the sample. The IPS and Fisher type tests are used to determine if a unit root
exists in a group of panel series. There are two sets of tests that were developed by Im,
Pesaran, and Shin [26] and Maddala and Wu [27]. Each of these tests follows the same basic
format, which may be described as an ADF regression for panel dataset in the following
format:
𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝
∆𝑦𝑦𝑦𝑦𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 = 𝛼𝛼𝛼𝛼𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 𝛾𝛾𝛾𝛾𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 𝑦𝑦𝑦𝑦𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖−1 + ∑𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖=1 𝜑𝜑𝜑𝜑𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 ∆𝑦𝑦𝑦𝑦𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖,𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖−1 + 𝜀𝜀𝜀𝜀𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 (5)
where, 𝛾𝛾𝛾𝛾𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 = 𝜌𝜌𝜌𝜌𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 − 1
The null hypothesis of unit root is tested using both techniques: 𝛾𝛾𝛾𝛾𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 = 0 (𝜌𝜌𝜌𝜌𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 = 1) as contrast
to the option of remaining static, H1: 𝛾𝛾𝛾𝛾𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 < 0 (𝜌𝜌𝜌𝜌𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 < 1).
The empirically relevant variables that were included in our model are outlined in Table
1, which provides a summary of those variables. In total, there are a maximum of 75

5
E3S Web of Conferences 449, 04002 (2023) https://doi.org/10.1051/e3sconf/202344904002
PDSED 2023

observations because of data limitation, and there are 5 variables, with only one of them being
dependent on the others.
Table 1. Descriptive Statistics
Variable Obs Mean Std. dev. Min Max
lnCO2 68 1.366584 .9236011 -.2196311 2.730512
lnGDP 75 24.22159 1.431896 21.87145 26.09241
lnFDI 72 20.41342 1.85864 15.35495 23.56956
lnTRADE 75 4.325496 .3630004 3.373905 4.984333
lnENERGY 63 .4851469 .7653352 -.8303974 1.589235
Source: Computed by using Stata 17.0
Displaying correlations between model’s independent variables, Table 2 shows the
model’s multicollinearity. A correlation value of 1.000 indicates that the two variables are
completely associated with one another, while 0.000 indicates that there is absolutely no
association between the two variables. In general, correlation values between 0.3 and 0.5
indicate a poor correlation, and correlation scores between 0.5 and 0.7 suggest a moderate
connection between two variables. Those with values more than 0.7 to 1 have a strong link;
the same is true for those with negative values, which have the opposite effect and have a
negative correlation [28, 29].
Table 2. Correlation Matrix

lnCO2 lnGDP lnFDI lnTRADE lnENERGY

lnCO2 1.0000
lnGDP 0.9365 1.0000
lnFDI 0.7636 0.7691 1.0000
lnTRADE -0.3628 -0.5690 -0.1207 1.0000
lnENERGY 0.9853 0.9633 0.7789 -0.4320 1.0000
Source: Computed by using Stata 17.0
Table 3 presents the results of a test for the variance inflation factor, which was done to
confirm that the assumption of trivial multicollinearity was met. Seeing as how the VIF for
any of the independent variables is less than 5, the assumption is supported and the condition
for identifying multicollinearity is fulfilled. VIF > 10 or 1/VIF 0.10 is a warning sign,
according to the literature.
Table 3. Variance Inflation Factor test results
Variable VIF 1/VIF
lnGDP 1.73 0.578032
lnFDI 1.68 0.596466
lnTRADE 1.13 0.883118
lnENERGY 1.25 0.865125
Mean VIF 1.51
Source: Computed by Stata 17.0

4 Results and Discussion

Before using panel data models, namely the panel ARDL model, to investigate the connection
between our interest variables, we have carefully tested for unit root and cointegration. It is

6
E3S Web of Conferences 449, 04002 (2023) https://doi.org/10.1051/e3sconf/202344904002
PDSED 2023

shown in Table 4 that results of the stationarity tests were conducted by utilizing a variety of
techniques, namely Phillips-Perron (PP), Im-Pesaran-Shin (IPS) tests, and the augmented
dickey fuller (ADF). Evidence is shown by the results that two different series, such as energy
consumption and FDI, are stationary in level according to the results of IPS test. In the first
difference, all variables in the study, namely CO2 emissions, GDP, FDI, trade openness, and
energy consumption are stationary. At either their level or at the first level, our results show
that the variables are stationary. Our analysis can therefore be conducted using the panel
ARDL model.
Table 4. Panel Stationarity Test Results
Fisher-type tests Im-Pesaran-Shin test
Fisher-PP statistics
I(0) I(1) I(0) I(1)
lnCO2 2.0808 55.2125*** -1.1070 -4.1359***
lnGDP 3.3077 36.1328*** 0.6109 -3.5487***
lnFDI 8.6460** 96.1235*** -2.5237*** -4.7223***
lnTRADE 4.5300 45.0643*** -0.7913 -3.7483***
lnENERGY 5.0640 71.9163*** -1.7815** -3.7701***
Note: In parentheses, the standard errors are as follows: ** p<0.05, * p<0.1, *** p<0.01. Results of
the IPS test are presented using t-bar test statistics. Statistical information about the Fisher-type test is
presented as inverse chi-squared test statistics.
Table 5 displays the results from the cointegration test. As the majority of the p-values
are less than 0.05, we may conclude that the variables are cointegrated.
Table 5. Pedroni Test for Cointegration
Statistic p-value
Within
Modified variance ratio 0.4158 0.3388
Modified Phillips–Perron t -0.6690 0.2517
Phillips–Perron t -2.4578 0.0070
Augmented Dickey–Fuller t -2.4193 0.0078
Between
Modified Phillips–Perron t -0.3468 0.3644
Phillips–Perron t -2.5846 0.0049
Augmented Dickey–Fuller t -2.2321 0.0128
Standard errors in parentheses: *** p<0.01, ** p<0.05, * p<0.1
Using the Panel ARDL model, we examine the long- and short-run connection between
CO2 emissions, GDP, FDI, trade openness, and energy consumption in Kazakhstan, Kyrgyz
Republic, and Uzbekistan after confirming stationarity and cointegration across variables.
Table 6 displays the results of the empirical analysis.
Table 6. Panel ARDL Analysis
VARIABLES PMG PMG MG MG DFE DFE

__ec -0.432 -1.689** -0.711***

(0.354) (0.734) (0.155)
D.lnGDP -0.451 -0.626 -0.374
(0.499) (0.676) (0.342)

7
E3S Web of Conferences 449, 04002 (2023) https://doi.org/10.1051/e3sconf/202344904002
PDSED 2023

D.lnFDI -0.0110* -0.0329 0.0123

(0.0302) (0.0406) (0.0141)
D.lnTRADE -0.0470 -0.323 -0.137**
(0.0667) (0.266) (0.0674)
D.lnENERGY 0.307** -1.057 0.132
(0.707) (0.736) (0.208)
lnGDP -0.401*** -0.284* -0.199***
(0.0690) (0.147) (0.0706)
lnFDI 0.0790*** 0.0800** 0.00463
(0.0250) (0.0334) (0.0218)
lnTRADE 0.181*** 0.0133 0.255***
(0.0555) (0.0854) (0.0636)
lnENERGY 1.194*** 0.967*** 1.226***
(0.0718) (0.137) (0.0878)
Constant 3.755 6.375** 3.183**
(2.912) (2.809) (1.400)

Observations 53 53 53 53 53 53

PMG or MG DFE or MG DFE or PMG

Hausman chi2 40.38 22.48 23.28
Prob>chi2 0.660 0.0002 0.0001
Standard errors in parentheses: *** p<0.01, ** p<0.05, * p<0.1
Firstly, before interpreting the results, we run a Hausman test to choose the right model
to interpret whether PMG, MG or DFE model are appropriate. The findings of the Hausman
test show that PMG model is more appropriate in this scenario because p-value of Hausman
test is 0.660 which cannot reject null hypothesis. That is why we proceed to interpret the
result of PMG model chosen according to the result of Hausman test.
According to the PMG model’s results, all factors, namely energy consumption, FDI,
trade openness, and GDP, have a statistically significant influence on CO2 emissions at the
1% level in the long run, but none have a significant impact on CO2 emissions in the short
run. Based on the results, economic development has a negative and statistically significant
influence on environmental deterioration in the study’s selected nations at the 1% level.
When there is a 1 percent rise in economic development, there can be 0.401 % decrease in
the amount of CO2 emissions generated. The results are supported by the works done by
Saidmamatov et al. [30].
Overall, the findings of the sample indicate that foreign direct investment has a positive
impact on CO2 emissions and is statistically significant at the 1% level. This finding indicates
that a rise of 1 percent in FDI corresponds to a rise of 0.0790 percent in CO2 emissions, which
indicates that FDI inflows in the countries under study have a statistically favorable influence
on CO2 emissions.
As per the findings, 1 % increase in trade openness contributes to 0.181 % acceleration
of CO2 emissions in selected Central Asian countries in the long run but not in the short run.
The next variable, energy use has significantly positive impact on CO2 emissions in the
countries under the study. According to the results, if there is one percent increase in energy
usage, there will be 1.194 percent rise in CO2 emissions of the countries.
Table 7 displays the results of a panel Granger causality test performed by Dumitrescu
and Hurlin [31]. In the first step of this process, we assess the hypothesis that Granger
causation does not explain the relationship between economic growth and energy use. The p-

8
E3S Web of Conferences 449, 04002 (2023) https://doi.org/10.1051/e3sconf/202344904002
PDSED 2023

value for the Granger non-causality test [32] results indicate that all the variables have
granger cause on CO2 emissions in Kazakhstan, Kyrgyz Republic, and Uzbekistan [33-55].
Table 7. Juodis, Karavias [31] Granger non-causality test results:
Null Hypothesis Statistics
GDP does not granger-cause CO2 emissions 104.63166***
FDI does not granger-cause CO2 emissions 21.255775***
Trade does not granger-cause CO2 emissions 5538.0595***
Energy use does not granger-cause CO2 emissions 166.07241***
***, ** and * indicate significance at 1%, 5% and 10% levels, respectively.

5 Conclusion
Researchers have recently shown an interest in examining the connection between rising
GDP and CO2 emissions, as well as rising energy use. Nevertheless, investigations based on
energy consumption are few for Central Asian nations, and there are no general consensuses
among the diverse studies.
Therefore, the primary objective of this study is to investigate the nexus between CO2
emissions, economic growth, and energy consumption on a panel of selected Central Asian
countries (Kazakhstan, Kyrgyz Republic, and Uzbekistan) from 1997 to 2021 by applying a
panel ARDL model to see the long-run and short-run relationships between the variables
under the study, and additionally, Granger Causality test is performed. According to the
findings of this study, energy consumption, foreign direct investment, and trade openness
increase CO2 emissions by 1% in selected regions over the long term, while economic growth
has a negative and statistically significant impact on CO2 emissions at a significance level of
1%. In the short-run, only FDI and energy consumption have statistically significant negative
and positive influence on CO2 emissions, respectively. According to the results of Granger
non-causality test, all the variables have granger cause on CO2 emissions in Central Asian
countries.
To maintain environmental quality and encourage increasing energy consumption, it is
necessary to take efforts to lessen the consequences of trade and investments via extensive
outreach and public awareness. In addition, transportation, manufacturing, and electricity
providers must adhere to strict energy saving standards. Further, these regulations should
encourage and facilitate the widespread use of alternative fuels.

References
1. A. Ahmad, Y. Zhao, M. Shahbaz, S. Bano, Z. Zhang, S. Wang, and Y. Liu. Carbon
emissions, energy consumption and economic growth: An aggregate and disaggregate
analysis of the Indian economy, Energy Policy, 96, 131-143 (2016) doi:
10.1016/j.enpol.2016.05.032
2. K.H. Ghali and M.I. El-Sakka. Energy use and output growth in Canada: a multivariate
cointegration analysis. Energy economics, 26(2), 225-238 (2004) doi: 10.1016/S0140-
9883(03)00056-2
3. A. Kasman and Y.S. Duman. CO2 emissions, economic growth, energy consumption,
trade and urbanization in new EU member and candidate countries: a panel data analysis.
Economic modelling, 44, 97-103 (2015) doi: 10.1016/j.econmod.2014.10.022
4. O. Damette and M. Seghir. Energy as a driver of growth in oil exporting countries?
Energy Economics. 37, 193-199 (2013). doi: 10.1016/j.eneco.2012.12.011

9
E3S Web of Conferences 449, 04002 (2023) https://doi.org/10.1051/e3sconf/202344904002
PDSED 2023

5. F. Hasanov, J. Mikayilov, C. Bulut, E. Suleymanov, and F. Aliyev. The role of oil prices
in exchange rate movements: The CIS oil exporters. Economies, 5(2), 13 (2017). doi:
10.3390/economies5020013
6. M. Shahbaz, S. Khan, and M.I. Tahir. The dynamic links between energy consumption,
economic growth, financial development and trade in China: fresh evidence from
multivariate framework analysis. Energy economics, 40, 8-21 (2013). doi:
10.1016/j.eneco.2013.06.006
7. B. Ozcan and I. Ozturk. Renewable energy consumption-economic growth nexus in
emerging countries: A bootstrap panel causality test. Renewable and Sustainable Energy
Reviews, 104, 30-37 (2019). doi: 10.1016/j.rser.2019.01.020
8. S. Ntanos, M. Skordoulis, G. Kyriakopoulos, G. Arabatzis, M. Chalikias, S. Galatsidas,
A. Batzios and A. Katsarou. Renewable energy and economic growth: Evidence from
European countries. Sustainability, 10(8), 2626 (2018). doi: 10.3390/su10082626
9. A. Syzdykova and G. Azretbergenova. Analysis of the relationship between foreign
direct investment and economic growth in Kazakhstan. Bulletin of KazNU. Economic
Series, 136(2), 72-84 (2021). doi: 10.26577/be.2021.v136.i2.08
10. D. Dedeoglu and A. Piskin. A dynamic panel study of energy consumption–economic
growth nexus: evidence from the former S oviet U nion countries. OPEC Energy Review.
38(1), 75-106 (2014). doi: 10.1111/opec.12017
11. B. Muhammad. Energy consumption, CO2 emissions and economic growth in
developed, emerging and Middle East and North Africa countries. Energy. 179, 232-245
(2019). doi: 10.1016/j.energy.2019.03.126
12. U. Mehmood, S. Tariq, Z. Ul-Haq and M. S. Meo. Does the modifying role of
institutional quality remains homogeneous in GDP-CO2 emission nexus? New evidence
from ARDL approach. Environmental Science and Pollution Research. 28, 10167-10174
(2021). doi: 10.1007/s11356-020-11293-y
13. S.S. Akadiri, T.T. Lasisi, G. Uzuner and A.C. Akadiri. Examining the impact of
globalization in the environmental Kuznets curve hypothesis: the case of tourist
destination states. Environmental Science and Pollution Research. 26(12), 12605-12615
(2019). doi: 10.1007/s11356-019-04722-0
14. M.C. Marinaș, M. Dinu, A.G. Socol and C. Socol. Renewable energy consumption and
economic growth. Causality relationship in Central and Eastern European countries.
PloS one. 13(10), e0202951 (2018). doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0202951
15. N. Apergis and J.E. Payne. Renewable energy consumption and growth in Eurasia.
Energy economics. 32(6), 1392-1397 (2010). doi: 10.1016/j.eneco.2010.06.001
16. U. Umurzakov, B. Mirzaev, R. Salahodjaev, A. Isaeva. Energy consumption and
economic growth: Evidence from post-communist countries, 670216917 (2020). doi:
10.32479/ijeep.10003
17. A. A Solarin and I. Ozturk. On the causal dynamics between hydroelectricity
consumption and economic growth in Latin America countries. Renewable and
Sustainable Energy Reviews. 52, 1857-1868 (2015). doi: 10.1016/j.rser.2015.08.003
18. R. Inglesi-Lotz. The impact of renewable energy consumption to economic growth: A
panel data application. Energy economics, 53, 58-63 (2016). doi:
10.1016/j.eneco.2015.01.003
19. M. Abdouli and S. Hammami. Exploring links between FDI inflows, energy
consumption, and economic growth: further evidence from MENA countries, Journal of
economic development. 42(1), 95 (2017).

10
E3S Web of Conferences 449, 04002 (2023) https://doi.org/10.1051/e3sconf/202344904002
PDSED 2023

20. B. Muhammad and S. Khan. Effect of bilateral FDI, energy consumption, CO2 emission
and capital on economic growth of Asia countries. Energy Reports. 5, 1305-1315 (2019).
doi: 10.1016/j.egyr.2019.09.004
21. K. Li et al. The link between urbanization, energy consumption, foreign direct
investments and CO2 emanations: An empirical evidence from the emerging seven (E7)
countries. Energy Exploration & Exploitation. 40(2), 477-500 (2022). doi:
10.1177/01445987211023854
22. M. M. Islam et al. Impact of globalization, foreign direct investment, and energy
consumption on CO2 emissions in Bangladesh: Does institutional quality matter?
Environmental Science and Pollution Research. 28(35), 48851-48871 (2021). doi:
10.1007/s11356-021-13441-4
23. M. A. Ansari, S. Haider, and N. Khan. Does trade openness affects global carbon dioxide
emissions: evidence from the top CO2 emitters. Management of Environmental Quality:
An International Journal, 2019. doi: 10.1108/MEQ-12-2018-0205
24. H. H. Pesaran and Y. Shin. Generalized impulse response analysis in linear multivariate
models. Economics letters. 58(1), 17-29 (1998). doi: 10.1016/S0165-1765(97)00214-0
25. H.H. Pesaran, Y. Shin, and R.P. Smith. Pooled estimation of long-run relationships in
dynamic heterogeneous panels. 1997.
26. K.S. Im, H.H. Pesaran, and Y. Shin. Testing for unit roots in heterogeneous panels.
Journal of econometrics. 115(1), 53-74 (2003). doi: 10.1016/S0304-4076(03)00092-7
27. G.S. Maddala and S. Wu. A comparative study of unit root tests with panel data and a
new simple test. Oxford Bulletin of Economics and statistics. 61(S1), 631-652 (1999).
doi: 10.1111/1468-0084.0610s1631
28. E.W. Frees. Assessing cross-sectional correlation in panel data. Journal of econometrics,
69(2), 393-414 (1995). doi: 10.1016/0304-4076(94)01658-M
29. M.H. Pesaran. Time series and panel data econometrics. 2015: Oxford University Press.
30. O. Saidmamatov, N. Tetreault, D. Bekjanov, E. Khodjaniyazov, E. Ibadullaev, Y.
Sobirov, LR. Adrianto. The Nexus between Agriculture, Water, Energy and
Environmental Degradation in Central Asia—Empirical Evidence Using Panel Data
Models. Energies. 16(7), 3206 (2023). doi: 10.3390/en16073206
31. E.I. Dumitrescu and C. Hurlin. Testing for Granger non-causality in heterogeneous
panels. Economic modelling. 29(4), 1450-1460 (2012). doi:
10.1016/j.econmod.2012.02.014
32. A. Juodis, Y. Karavias, and V. Sarafidis. A homogeneous approach to testing for Granger
non-causality in heterogeneous panels. Empirical Economics. 60(1), 93-112 (2021). doi:
10.1007/s00181-020-01970-9
33. A.P. Garnov, V.Y. Garnova, L.V. Shabaltina, I.R. Begishev, L.V. Panferova. New
opportunities for the digital economy: The implementation of an effective state
innovation policy. Journal of Environmental Treatment Techniques, 8(4), 1321-1325
(2020).
34. Z.I. Khisamova, I.R. Begishev, Implications of Increased Data Collection. The Platform
Economy: Designing a Supranational Legal Framework, 419-433 (2022).
35. O.N. Korableva, N. Gorelov, O. Kalimullina. Contemporary issues of intellectual
capital: Bibliographic analysis. Lecture Notes in Mechanical Engineering, 13th World
Congress on Engineering Asset Management, WCEAM 2018, 457-464 (2020).
doi:10.1007/978-3-030-48021-9_51

11
E3S Web of Conferences 449, 04002 (2023) https://doi.org/10.1051/e3sconf/202344904002
PDSED 2023

36. E.A. Osadchy, S.Y. Bakhvalov, O.N. Ustyuzhina. Regional social and economic concern
of supply chain sustainability in Republic of Tatarstan. International Journal of Supply
Chain Management, 9(3), 558-561 (2020).
37. I. A. Filipova, Creating the metaverse: consequences for economy, society, and law.
Journal of Digital Technologies and Law, 1(1), 7-32 (2023). doi: 10.21202/jdtl.2023.1
38. S.V. Khusainova. A regional system to forecast the social-economic development: The
case of the RF regions. European Research Studies Journal, 21(1), 588-601 (2018).
39. A. A. Kurilova, H. A. O. Hajiyev, E. I. Abdullina, A. B. Plisova, A. A. Arkhipenko,
Production-Distribution Problem Optimization in a Green Closed-Loop Supply Chain.
Industrial Engineering and Management Systems, 20(4), 509-521 (2021) doi:
10.7232/iems.2021.20.4.509
40. P. Chetthamrongchai, O.G. Stepanenko, N.R. Saenko, S.Y. Bakhvalov, G. Aglyamova,
A.H. Iswanto. A Developed Optimization Model for Mass Production Scheduling
Considering the Role of Waste Materials. International Journal of Industrial Engineering
and Management, Art. 307, 1-10(2022). doi: 10.24867/IJIEM-2022-2-307.
41. V.S. Kuhar, Implementation of integrated QMS at the cereals enterprises in northern
Kazakhstan. Life Science Journal, 11(spec. issue 5), 21, 111-115 (2014).
42. Z.M. Turdiyeva, V.S. Kukhar, B.S. Korabayev. State regulation of biofuel use in
agriculture of the Republic of Kazakhstan. Actual Problems of Economics, 169(7), 106-
111 (2015).
43. R.I. Sharafutdinov, A.G. Polyakova, V.O. Gerasimov, R.N. Shpakova, M.V.
Mikhailova. Inclusive growth: A dataset on key and institutional foundations for
inclusive development of russian regions. Data in Brief, 23, 1-16 (2019).
doi:10.1016/j.dib.2019.103864
44. A.N. Ustyuzhantseva, V.F. Islamutdinov. Methodological tools for assessing the impact
of network factors on the economic security of enterprises of the fuel and energy
complex in the northern resource-extracting region. Journal of Advanced Research in
Dynamical and Control Systems, 12 (7 Special Issue), 1379-1386 (2020).
doi:10.5373/JARDCS/V12SP7/20202239
45. R.I. Sharafutdinov, V.O. Gerasimov, E.M. Akhmetshin, N.A. Zharina, A.V. Kazakov,
T.R. Teor. Study of inclusive growth of municipal entities as an example of the republic
of tatarstan. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 31st International Business
Information Management Association Conference, IBIMA 2018: Innovation
Management and Education Excellence through Vision 2020, 3903-3913 (2018).
46. S. A. Minich, Improving the System of Mandatory Requirements to Business under the
Digital Transformation of Economy. Journal of Digital Technologies and Law, 1(3),
775-802 (2023). doi:10.21202/jdtl.2023.34
47. A. Mazina, D. Syzdykova, A. Myrzhykbayeva, G. Raikhanova, A. Nurgaliyeva. Impact
of Green Fiscal Policy on Investment Efficiency of Renewable Energy Enterprises in
Kazakhstan. International Journal of Energy Economics and Policy, 12(5), 491-497
(2022). https://doi.org/10.32479/ijeep.13437
48. S. Suwarni, E. Akhmetshin, H. Okagbue, E. Lydia, K. Shankar. Digital economic
challenges and economic growth in environmental revolution 4.0. Journal of
Environmental Treatment Techniques, 8(1), 546-550 (2020).
49. S.Tynybekov, R.Yerezhepkyzy, A.K.Berdibayeva, A.A.Esekeeva, N.K.Mynbatyrova,
E.Akopova. Access to environmental information in legislation of the republic of
Kazakhstan, Life Science Journal, 11(spec. issue 5), 231-238 (2014). doi:
10.7537/marslsj1105s14.45

12
E3S Web of Conferences 449, 04002 (2023) https://doi.org/10.1051/e3sconf/202344904002
PDSED 2023

50. K. Bagratuni, E. Kashina, E. Kletskova, D. Kapustina, M. Ivashkin, V. Sinyukov, A.

Karshalova, H. Hajiyev, E. Hajiyev. Impact of socially responsible business behavior on
implementing the principles of sustainable development (experience of large business).
International Journal of Sustainable Development and Planning, 18(8), 2481-2488
(2023). doi: 10.18280/ijsdp.180819
51. Zh.A. Nokusheva, E.Ye. Kantarbayeva, M.B. Ormanbetov, B.T. Yermagambet, Z.M.
Kassenova, M.K. Kazankapova. Development and Implementation of Effective
Schemes for the Use of Mineral Fertilizers in the Forest-Steppe Zone of the North
Kazakhstan Region, OnLine Journal of Biological Sciences, 23(3), 313-322 (2023). doi:
10.3844/ojbsci.2023.313.322.
52. M. Dubovik, S. Dmitriev, A. M. Shaposhnikov, G. Xalmatjanova, Technology for
obtaining information on CO2 emissions caused by natural and man-made factors using
the ARIMA model, Journal of Theoretical and Applied Information Technology, 101
(7), 2586-2602 (2023).
53. N. Apergis, B. Kuziboev, I. Abdullaev, A. Rajabov. Investigating the association among
CO2 emissions, renewable and non-renewable energy consumption in uzbekistan: An
ARDL approach. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 30(14), 39666-39679
(2023). doi:10.1007/s11356-022-25023-z
54. B. Kuziboev, P Vysusilova, R. Salahodjaev, A. Rajabov, T. Rakhimov. The Volatility
Assessment of CO2 Emissions in Uzbekistan: ARCH/GARCH Models. International
Journal of Energy Economics and Policy, 13(5), 1-7 (2023). doi: 10.32479/ijeep.14487
55. I. S. Abdullaev, and K. I. Khamraev, Modeling factors affecting net assets of investment
funds using autoregressive distributed lag (ARDL) model. Journal of Critical Reviews,
7(12), 987-990 (2020). doi:10.31838/jcr.07.12.174

13