Abstract
This paper empirically analyzes the impact of automation upon firms’ carbon dioxide emissions (CO2 emissions) of China by using data for the period 1998–2009. Our research yields a few findings. First, we find that automation as measured by the robot density can reduce firms’ CO2 emissions intensity. Specifically, 1% increase in the robot density leads to a 0.018% decrease in CO2 emissions intensity. Second, we find that automation reduces firms’ CO2 emissions intensity by promoting firms’ technological innovation and improving management efficiency. Finally, we find that automation exerts a greater impact on reducing CO2 emissions intensity for firms in industries with high CO2 emissions intensity rather than low CO2 emissions intensity, and for firms in capital-intensive industries rather than non-capital-intensive industries, as well as firms in industries with high servitization of manufacturing rather than low servitization of manufacturing. Moreover, the mitigating effects of automation have been given greater play on firms’ CO2 emissions intensity after the global financial crisis.
Similar content being viewed by others
Explore related subjects
Discover the latest articles, news and stories from top researchers in related subjects.Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
1 Introduction
With the development of economy, the greenhouse gases with carbon dioxide (CO2) as the most part aggravate the deterioration of the environment (Kuang and Lin 2021) and cause global warming (Du et al. 2018; Qin et al. 2021). It is predicted that without appropriate measures taken to stop the growth of CO2 emissions, the earth’s temperature will rise by 3–4 degrees centigrade compared with that in the pre-industrial era (Chen and Lin 2021). Therefore, many countries, including China, have formulated plans to achieve carbon neutrality.Footnote 1 Studies have proved that the digital technology plays an important role in energy utilization and environmental improvement (Ciocoiu 2011; Bakhriddinovna 2021; Li et al. 2022a, b). With the continuous development of automation driven by computer numerical control machinery, industrial robots and artificial intelligence (AI), automation is becoming the core technology of CO2 emissions reduction (Alarfaj et al. 2020). For example, the GoBe Robots can help to reduce CO2 emissions by thousands of tons.Footnote 2 However, unlike the vigorous development at the practical activity, whether the automation can promote CO2 emissions reduction, especially for developing countries like China which has become the largest CO2 emitter in the world (Yu and Yu 2019), is still an open question in the existing literature.
Previous studies have researched CO2 emissions reduction from the perspectives of trade (Guo et al. 2010; Richter and Schiersch 2017; Cole et al. 2013; Forslid et al. 2018), environmental regulation (Wen and Liu 2022), energy consumption (Ahmad et al. 2016), economic growth (Li 2010; Meng et al. 2011; Zhang et al. 2012), urbanization (Liu et al. 2011; Zhang and Lin 2012; Zhang et al. 2014) and technology development (Ang 2009; Moyer and Hughes 2012; Li et al. 2022a, b). In these studies, the measurement of CO2 emissions is mostly at national and regional levels (Guo et al. 2010; Su and Ang 2015; Wang et al. 2020; Li et al. 2022a, b). For example, based on China’s input-output table, Wang et al. (2020) study China’s overall CO2 emissions intensity by using multi-region multiplication structure decomposition. While there is a small part of the literature focusing on the CO2 emissions intensity at the firm level using the fuel-specific emissions factors (Richter and Schiersch 2017; Forslid et al. 2018), which is highly related to our research. This strand of the literature mainly focuses on the impact of exports on firms’ CO2 emissions intensity. Specifically, based on the data of German, Richter and Schiersch (2017) derive empirical strategies from the firm production function and find that the firms’ export intensity is negatively related to the CO2 emissions intensity. This negative correlation is also confirmed with Swedish firms data (Forslid et al. 2018) and Japanese firms data (Cole et al. 2013). In addition, studies from the perspective of technological development in the above literature are also highly relevant to our research. Many studies confirm the key role of technological development including technology transfer (Ang 2009), digital technology (Moyer and Hughes 2012; Nguyen et al. 2020; Li et al. 2022a, b; Zhang et al. 2022) in CO2 emissions reduction at the country, province and city levels. Among this literature, Li et al. (2022a, b) use country-level data to examine the impact of industrial robot applications on CO2 emissions intensity, and find that the application of industrial robots can reduce CO2 emissions intensity, which is similar to our study. In addition, some researchers believe that the increase of patent filings (Ma et al. 2021), especially the environmental patent filings (Hashmi and Alam 2019; Wang et al. 2012), also plays an important role in reducing CO2 emissions of the country and the province. However, technological progress can also increase CO2 emissions due to its effects on output growth (Van den Bergh 2011; Li and Jiang 2016; Zhang et al. 2017). In this regard, some literature finds the dual effects of technological development upon CO2 emissions (Yang and Li 2017). The existence of rebound effect makes the impact of technological development on CO2 emissions reduction more complicated. As a specific manifestation of digital technology progress, automation is an important part and a major innovation of Industry 4.0 (Li et al. 2022a, b), while few studies focus on the impact of automation on firm CO2 emissions.
For the effects of automation, the existing literature mainly focuses on the point of employment (Acemoglu 2002; Autor and Salomons 2018; Acemoglu and Restrepo 2019), income inequality (Aghion et al. 2019; Hémous and Olsen 2022), productivity (Graetz and Michaels 2018; Acemoglu and Restrepo 2020), economic growth (Acemoglu and Restrepo 2017; Graetz and Michaels 2018), as well as environmental pollution (Liu and De Giovanni 2019; Li et al. 2022a, b). And environmental pollution is highly relevant to our research. Existing research believes that robot technology can help firms to reduce resource waste and pollution emissions, thereby mitigating environmental pollution (Liu and De Giovanni 2019). From an empirical perspective, based on the Environmental Kuznets Curve (EKC) model, Li et al. (2022a, b) find that the application of industrial robots can reduce a country’s CO2 emissions intensity through green total factor productivity and energy intensity. Besides that, there is also a strand of literature studying the impact of AI on environmental pollution (Ye et al. 2020; Ghane et al. 2016), which is also highly relevant to this study. Specificially, on the one hand, the adoption of AI can optimize firms’ production conditions and improve the efficiency of pollution control (Ye et al. 2020), and formulate reasonable and efficient emission control measures (Guozhen et al. 2016), thus reducing environmental pollution (Ghane et al. 2016). While on the other hand, with the popularity of machine learning systems, AI systems consume too much power and generate a large amount of CO2 emissions (Henderson et al. 2020). Strubell et al. (2019) find that training a AI processing system can generate 1400 pounds of CO2 emissions. Therefore, AI has rebound effects on CO2 emissions. Through the above discussion, the existing research has not empirically explored the effects of automation on firms’ CO2 emissions intensity of China and its mechanism.
To address this issue, we focus on the role of automation in manufacturing industries in reducing firms’ CO2 emissions intensity of China. Our starting point is that automation in an industry can be identified from the robot density, which equals the number of robots per million hours worked (Aghion et al. 2019). To put this idea into practice, we use highly refined firm-level data on China’s manufacturing firms for the period 1998–2009, which comes from three sources-the China’s Environmental Statistics Database (CESD), the China’s Industrial Enterprise Database (CIED), as well as the International Federation of Robotics (IFR).
Through empirical analysis, our findings can be summarized as follows. We first find that there is a negative effect of automation on firms’ CO2 emissions intensity. Specifically, 1% increase in the robot density (the proxy for automation) in the industry leads to a 0.018% decrease in firms’ CO2 emissions intensity. This relationship is verified to hold over solving endogeneity and various robustness checks, including the use of alternative measures, changing the time interval of research sample, controlling industry-time trend, and so on. Then we find two potential mechanisms to explain how automation affects CO2 emissions intensity at the firm level. One side is through promoting the firms’ technological innovation, while the other is through improving the firms’ management efficiency. Both channels cause the reduction of firms’ CO2 emissions intensity. Finally, through heterogeneous effects analysis, we find that automation exerts a greater impact on reducing CO2 emissions intensity for firms in industries with high CO2 emissions intensity rather than low CO2 emissions intensity. Besides, automation has significant effects on reducing CO2 emissions intensity for firms in capital-intensive industries, but not for those in non-capital-intensive industries. Furthermore, compared to firms in industries with low servitization of manufacturing, automation has a greater impact on reducing CO2 emissions intensity for firms in industries with high servitization of manufacturing. Moreover, the empirical results also show that the mitigating effects of automation have been given greater play on firms’ CO2 emissions intensity after the global financial crisis.
Our study contributes to the existing literature in three ways: firstly, different from few existing literature focusing on developed countries’ firm CO2 emissions intensity and export (Forslid et al. 2018; Richter and Schiersch 2017; Cole et al. 2013), we not only investigate the impact of automation in the manufacturing industry on firms’ CO2 emissions intensity of China, which is the largest developing country and the main driver of the increase of global CO2 emissions,Footnote 3 but we also explore the mechanisms of the effects. Therefore our analysis provides empirical evidence for developing countries, not only China, to develop digital technology to reduce CO2 emissions. Secondly, we not only integrate highly refined research data, but also extend the time span of the research data to 2016 at the industry level to explore the impact of automation on the industry’s CO2 emissions intensity from 2006 to 2016. More specifically, we have obtained the data of the China’s Environmental Statistics Database (CESD), which covers major pollutant emissions and various energy consumption indicators at the firm level collected by the National Bureau of Statistics of China (NBSC). This dataset is monitored and inspected by China’s local environmental protection departments at any time and is considered as the most comprehensive and reliable pollution emissions dataset at the firm level in China. We combine the data of CESD with the data of the China’s Industrial Enterprise Database (CIED), and further match with the robot data provided by the International Federation of Robotics (IFR). With them we finally form the highly refined research data. Thirdly, our research is different from the existing research on automation and CO2 emissions at the macro levels (Li et al. 2022a, b), which may ignore the firm specific characteristics. We have creatively constructed the CO2 emissions intensity for China’s manufacturing firms by using the sectoral method (Liu et al. 2015; Shan et al. 2018). Based on this indicator, we can investigate the heterogeneity of CO2 emissions at the firm level.
The rest of the paper proceeds as follows. Section 2 introduces the theoretical framework of our research. Section 3 lays out the research design, including the empirical model, data sources, and the description of variables. Section 4 shows our main empirical results. Section 5 discusses some extensions of the heterogeneous analysis for the main findings. And Section 6 concludes the conclusion.
2 Theoretical framework
As previously mentioned, as an important part of Industry 4.0, the application of automation technology represented by industrial robots has provided many economic benefits, such as increasing production flexibility, reducing production costs, improving productivity, and mitigating resource waste in production (Gaggl and Wright 2017; Graetz and Michaels 2018; Aghion et al. 2019; Acemoglu and Restrepo 2020; Li et al. 2022b). Although the use of industrial robots does not necessarily give priority to reduce environmental pollution, the series of automation technologies driven by robot promote pollution treatment facilities upgrading thereby improving the efficiency of pollution control (Ye et al. 2020; Javaid et al. 2021; Liu and De Giovanni 2019), thus reducing CO2 emissions (Zhang et al. 2022). What’s more, the application of industrial robots can help to increase production efficiency by replacing labor, which can expand firms’ output with the same input, decreasing resource and energy consumption, further reducing CO2 emissions (Graetz and Michaels 2018). In addition, the application of industrial robots can promote firms’ intelligent transformation, which can also improve environment from the demand side and further promote social sustainability (St Louis and Cazier 2010). For example, in recent years, the widespread of shared bicycles has greatly reduced the frequency of private car travel, thus reducing energy consumption (Li et al. 2020). Therefore, based on the forgoing analysis, we propose the first hypothesis:
Hypothesis 1. Automation can reduce a firm’s CO2 emissions intensity.
We further investigate that how automation reduces firms’ CO2 emissions intensity. Automation contains digital algorithms and some other technologies. Its high-precision attribute characteristics provide firms with superior hardware infrastructure and digital algorithm technology, which supports R&D innovation (Trajtenberg 2018; Vannuccini and Prytkova 2021). What’s more, the use of industrial robots in production helps to promote firms’ technological innovation through knowledge spillover, learning ability improvement and R&D investment (Liu et al. 2020). And industrial robots also contribute to green innovation (Liu and De Giovanni 2019). Meanwhile, using robots to collect, integrate, classify and process user data is helpful to optimize firms’ business strategy and improve the process of R&D (Cockburn et al. 2018). This supports firms to invest more funds, personnels and some other factors in R&D innovation, thereby driving firms’ innovation activities.
To sum up, automation technology can promote firms’ technological innovation. And technological innovation is the main driver of firms’ environmental governance (Grossman and Krueger 1991; Wang et al. 2012; Hashmi and Alam 2019; Ma et al. 2021), which plays a key role in reducing firms’ CO2 emission intensity (Du et al. 2019; Yang et al. 2020). Therefore, the above discussion leads to the second hypothesis:
Hypothesis 2. Automation can reduce a firm’s CO2 emissions intensity by promoting technological innovation.
In addition, automation technology can help to establish an environmental information coordination center, integrating online monitoring of data information, real-time transmission of video images, and real-time reporting of environmental pollution (Guozhen et al. 2016). This optimizes the efficiency of the firm’s pollution management, guiding managers to accelerate the elimination of high energy consumption and pollution production links while making more efficient and cleaner improvement on the existing production, further reducing the firm’s CO2 emissions intensity. In addition, the extensive use of industrial robots in production can help the optimization of firms’ production factors and promotion of the reconfiguration of production resources, thus optimizing the production process and the product management system, further improving energy efficiency and promoting firms’ green transformation (Ye et al. 2020; Wang et al. 2022). The reason is that, on the one hand, compared with labor, automation equipment can more accurately simulate the physical parameters and performance differences of products, thus reducing the rework and defective rate, which reduces the corresponding energy consumption and pollutant generation (Cai et al. 2013). On the other hand, automation system with a large amount of data collection, integration and analysis can help firm to adopt the lean management principle in the activities and processes of the organization (Khuntia et al. 2018). This improvement accurately identifies the customer needs and masters the production and transaction dynamics, thus promoting the effective coordination between the human resources inside firm and the customer needs outside.
Therefore, automation provide a large amount of market information for firm production and maximize firm management efficiency, thus reducing ineffective inventory, the corresponding energy consumption and CO2 emissions. In this regard, the above discussion leads to the third hypothesis:
Hypothesis 3. Automation can reduce a firm’s CO2 emissions intensity by improving management efficiency.
3 Research design
In this section, we present the research design. We begin at the baseline model, and then introduce the variables and data with which we estimate the model.
3.1 Model
The goal of our empirical strategy is to evaluate the impact of automation on firms’ CO2 emissions intensity. Consistent with Cherniwchan (2017), we set the following empirical formula as our baseline model.
where i, j, and t represent the firm, two-digit CIC (the China Industrial Classification) industry, and year respectively. \({\mathrm{lnCO}}_{{2}_{\mathrm{it}}}\) is CO2 emissions intensity at the firm level, which is calculated as the logarithm of the ratio of a firm’s CO2 emissions to its real output. \({\mathrm{lnau}}_{\mathrm{jt}}\) represents the automation of the two-digit CIC industry and is measured by robot density. In addition, \(\overrightarrow{X}\) represents a vector containing control variables which may potentially affect \({\mathrm{lnCO}}_{{2}_{\mathrm{it}}}\). \({\upgamma }_{\mathrm{i}}\) and \({\updelta }_{\mathrm{t}}\) are the firm, and year fixed effects, respectively. \({\upvarepsilon }_{\mathrm{it}}\) is the error term.
3.2 Measurements
3.2.1 CO2 emissions intensity
CO2 emissions intensity at the firm level is measured by the logged value of the ratio of a firm’s CO2 emissions to its real output (deflated by the ex-factory price index of industrial producers). As a robustness check, the real industrial value added (deflated by the ex-factory price index of industrial producers) is also used as an alternative variable of a firm’s output. Although firms do not directly report CO2 emissions, they report information about energy use in detail. Therefore, following Liu et al. (2015) and Shan et al. (2018), we use sectoral method to calculate CO2 emissions at the firm level. The formula for calculation is as follows:
where k = 1,2,3, represents three types of energy, including coal, fuel oil and natural gas, respectively. \({\mathrm{CO}}_{{2}_{\mathrm{ik}}}\) is CO2 emissions generated by the consumption of energy k by firm i. \({\mathrm{AD}}_{\mathrm{ik}}\) is the consumption of energy k by firm i. \({\mathrm{NCV}}_{\mathrm{k}}\) is the net heat value, which is generated by per unit energy k. \({\mathrm{CC}}_{\mathrm{k}}\) is CO2 emissions generated by the unit net heat value of energy k. \({\mathrm{O}}_{\mathrm{ik}}\) is the oxidation rate, which is the oxidation conversion rate of energy k combustion in firm i.
Based on the formulas (2) and (3), we use various energy consumption indicators offered by CESD to calculate CO2 emissions for China’s manufacturing firms from 1998 to 2009Footnote 4 and further depict its dynamic trend in different regions and detailed industries. As Fig. 1 shows, from 1998 to 2009, CO2 emissions in China increased from 5.399 kt to 75.463 kt.
Figure 2 shows that CO2 emissions in China’s manufacturing mainly come from firms in central and western regions, which has experienced a great growth. About CO2 emissions in China’s different manufacturing industries, Fig. 3 shows that CO2 emissions in the following industries are high, including petroleum processing, coking and nuclear fuel processing industry (25), ferrous metal smelting and calendering processing industry (32). While CO2 emissions in other industries are relatively low, especially the textile and garment, shoe and hat manufacturing (18), leather, fur, feather (down) and its products (19) and cultural, educational and sports goods manufacturing (24). The main reason is the great differences of energy consumption among various industries.
3.2.2 Automation
Following Graetz and Michaels (2018), we use the robot density (the logged value of the number of robots per million hours worked) from IFR as the proxy of automation. With this index, we depict the dynamic trend of automation at the industry level in Fig. 4, and further investigate the dynamic trend in different regions and specific industries, which are shown respectively in Figs. 5, and 6. Overall, Fig. 4 shows that prior to 2006, the robot density of China’s manufacturing remained at 0. After 2005, except for the large decrease in 2008 due to the global financial crisis, the robot density is increasing in the other years, which is in line with the actual situation in China.
Figure 5 shows that the total dynamic trend of the robot density in different regions are consistent with that in Fig. 4, while the robot density in the eastern region of China is significantly higher than that in the central and western regions. This is because compared to the central and western regions, the eastern region has a higher level of economic development, investing more in research and development, and has more obvious advantages in talent accumulation as well as more complete infrastructure. We then further explore the robot density in the detailed industries, which is shown in Fig. 6. It indicates that the robot density of the plastic products industry (30) and the rubber products industry (29) are higher than that in the other industries.
3.2.3 Other variables
We further include the following variables in the analysis: (1) Firm age (age). We first calculate the differences of the current year and the firm’s year of establishment, and then take the logarithm of the sum of this value and 1. (2) Capital intensity (lnkl). It is the natural logarithm of the ratio of the firm’s real fixed assets (deflated by the fixed asset investment price index) to the number of its employees. A bigger value of lnkl indicates the firm is more capital intensive. (3) SOE (if_soe). If the firm is state-owned, the value is 1, otherwise it is 0. (4) FOE (if_fdi). If the firm is foreign-owned, the value is 1, otherwise it equals 0. (5) Financing capability (fc). It is measured by the ratio of firm’s interest expenditure to its real fixed assets (deflated by the fixed asset investment price index). The larger this variable’s value, the stronger the firm’s financing capability, which means it has less significant financing constraints. (6) Market concentration (hhi). We measure this variable by Herfindahl–Hirschman index at the two-digit CIC industry level, which is equal to the square sum of the market shares of the firms in the two-digit CIC industry. A bigger value of hhi indicates a more concentrated market. The above variables are all calculated based on the information of CIED. (7) Environmental regulation (envi). Environmental regulation is measured by the logged value of the number of environmental administrative punishment cases in the region according to China Statistical Yearbook on environment. A bigger value of envi indicates more serious environmental regulation. (8) Upstream AU index (UAU). It is measured by the the robot density of various manufacturing from IFR and the input-output relationship among industries from the 2007 National Input and Output Table which published by the NBSC. The detailed measurement is shown in the formula (5) of Section 5.2. (9) Alternative measurement of firm’s CO2 emissions intensity (lnCO2_1). We use the logged value of the ratio of firm’s CO2 emissions to its real industrial value added (deflated by the ex-factory price index of industrial producers) with CESD and CIED. (10) Robot stock (lnaustock). It equals to the logged value of the robot stock from IFR. (11) Patent quality (patent_quality). Following Boh et al. (2014), we use the knowledge width method to measure it. (12) Patent quantity (patent_quantity). Patent quantity is the logged value of the total number of firm’s patents application in year t. The data used to measure patent quality and patent quantity are from China’s State Intellectual Property Office (SIPO), which contains detailed information of all patent filings since 1985, and patents are dated by the year of application. In particular, it includes the filing date, the applicant’s official name and address, the patent’s name and type, and the IPC classifications. (13) Management efficiency (m_efficiency). Management efficiency is equal to the logged value of the ratio of firm’s real sales (deflated by the ex-factory price index of industrial producers) to management cost, both of which can be got from CIED.
3.3 Data sources
To study the relationship between CO2 emissions intensity at the firm level and robot density at the industry level, we rely on three datasets from 1998 to 2009-the China’s Environmental Statistics Database (CESD), the China’s Industrial Enterprise Database (CIED), as well as the International Federation of Robotics (IFR). These three databases provide the necessary data information for our research. More specifically, CIED is from the National Bureau of Statistics of China (NBSC) and includes rich information on all state-owned and above-scale non-state-owned firms’ characteristics, such as name, location, industry, opening year, balance sheet, employees, and so on. It has the advantages of large sample, comprehensive indicators and long time interval. CESD comes from NBSC, considered to be the most comprehensive and reliable environmental industrial firm dataset in China. It covers firms whose emissions of major pollutants accounts for more than 85% of the total emissions of various regions and reports the detailed information, such as firms’ fundamental information (name, legal person code and so on), major pollutant emissions (industrial wastewater, SO2 and soot), as well as various energy consumption indicators (coal, fuel oil and natural gas and so on). IFR, a unique international association, provides the stock and installation of industrial robots that meet ISO standards in 75 countries or regions in the world from 1993 to 2019, and is classified by industry and use.
With regard to the match of these databases, firstly, we merge CIED and CESD, and the details are as follows: (1) Following Brandt et al. (2012) and Wang et al. (2018), we merge these two databases using firm code, firm name, and the firm’s administrative division code for the same year in turn. (2) We then use the firm’s abbreviated name and the province code to merge these two databases. Secondly, through the conversion of different kinds of industry code, we integrate the robot data in IFR with the firms’ data obtained in the first step. We make the following processing: (1) Based on the original robot data from IFR, we extract the robot data of all China’s industries. (2) We merge the robot data of industries in IFR with the two-digit CIC codes industry of the National Economic Industry Classification (see Table 8 in Appendix for the industry conversion details), realizing the integrating of robot data with China’s firms’ data. Finally, based on Feenstra et al. (2014) and Yu (2015), we also carry out a series of cleaning and treatment on the research sample. In detail, we exclude the observation that do not conform to one of the following accounting standards: (1) if the number of a firm’s employees are less than 8; (2) if one of the firm’s following indicators, such as age, real output, real sales, real industrial value added, and the net value of fixed assets are less than or equal to 0. In addition, due to lacking energy consumption data and poor data quality in 2010 and beyond, CO2 emissions cannot be measured. Therefore, the final sample interval is from 1998 to 2009. Table1 summarizes the descriptive statistics of the main variables in this research.
4 Empirical results
In this section, we first present the estimation results of the model as well as the instrumental variable estimation. We then report the mechanism results about firm technological innovation promotion and management efficiency improvement. Finally, we make a set of robustness checks with the baseline model.
4.1 Baseline results
Table 2 reports the results of the effect of automation expressed by the robot density of the manufacturing industry on the CO2 emissions intensity at the firm level based on model (1). Column (1) do not control any fixed effects and column (2) controls year fixed effects, while column (3) presents the results including year and firm fixed effects. These results indicate that automation decreases CO2 emissions intensity of firms. The coefficient in column (3) indicates that a 1% increase in the robot density of the manufacturing industry is connected with a 0.018% decrease in firms’ CO2 emissions intensity.
4.2 2SLS estimates Footnote 5
Endogenity caused by missing variables may affect the consistency of estimation results. Therefore, we build an upstream AU index (UAU) as an instrument. This instrumental variable is based on the the robot density of various manufacturing industries and the input-output relationship among industries, which is measured as follows: we first calculate the input-output weight with the complete consumption coefficient.Footnote 6 Below is the formula derive the measure:
where weightlj is the complete consumption coefficient of the manufacturing industry j to the upstream industry \(l\), which is the sum of the direct consumption and indirect consumption of the goods or services of industry \(l\) when industry \(j\) provides a unit product for final consumption. The first term on the right side of Eq. (4) represents the direct consumption of the industry \(j\) to the industry \(l\), the second term represents the first round of indirect consumption, and so on. Similarly, the N + 1 term is the n-th round of indirect consumption.
Then, after obtaining the consumption weight of a manufacturing industry to other upstream industries, we multiply the weight by the robot density of each upstream manufacturing industry, through which we can quantify the absorption of automation factors of the manufacturing industry from all upstream industries. Finally, we aggregate this index based on the same industry to get the UAU of the manufacturing industry of interest. Specifically, the formula is as follows:
where, ault is the the robot density of the upstream industry \(l\) in year t. \(\omega_{ljt}\) is the consumption weight of the downstream industry on the inputs of industry \(l\) in year t, and UAUjt is the upstream automation of manufacturing industry \(j\) in year t.
Since the industry can significantly increase the use of robot with the help of high automation intermediate inputs, which means the automation in a industry is closely related to that in the upstream industries. Therefore, UAU meets the correlation requirements of instrumental variables. At the same time, the firms’ pollution in the industry can hardly affect the automation in upstream industries. Therefore, the instrumental variables are not related to the residual term, which can meet the exogenous requirements. In general, satisfying the assumptions of correlation and exclusionary restrictions, the instrumental variable UAU is reliable and effective. We will verify this in subsequent empirical analysis.
With UAU as the instrumental variable, we employ two-stage least squares to estimate baseline model (1). The estimation results are shown in columns (1)-(2) of Table 3. The weak identification test and the under identification test shows that the instrumental variables can meet requirements. The results of the first stage show that UAU is significantly positively related to lnau. The second stage results show that after solving endogenous problems, the coefficient of lnau on firms’ CO2 emissions intensity is still significantly negative. Furthermore, we also overcome endogenity by using a 1-year lag of lnau as an alternative instrumental variable (L.lnau). The estimation results are shown in columns (3) and (4) of Table 3. The relevant tests also supports the correlation assumptions and exclusionary restrictions of instrumental variables, and the regression results are still consistent with that in the baseline model.
4.3 Mechanisms
Through the theoretical analysis in the previous part, we propose that automation can reduce a firm’s CO2 emissions intensity by promoting technological innovation and improving management efficiency. As stated above, technological innovation is expressed by a firm’s patent quantity and patent quality. Specifically, patent quantity (patent_quantity) is measured by the logged value of the total number of a firm’s patents applied in one year. And patent quality (patent_quality) is measured by the knowledge width method. Management efficiency (m_efficiency) is the logged value of the ratio of a firm’s real sales (deflated by the ex-factory price index of industrial producers) to management cost.
Based on these variables, we conduct a detailed analysis and investigation of the above-mentioned channels from the perspective of empirical analysis. The results are displayed in Table 4. Columns (1)-(4) shows that automation can significantly improve a firm’s patent quality and increase the number of a firm’s patent filings. Meanwhile, the coefficients of patent_quality and patent_quantity on firm’s CO2 emissions intensity are all significantly negaitive. This supports the hypothesis 2 that the reduction effect of automation on a firm’s CO2 emissions intensity is through promoting a firm’s technological innovation, measured by the firm’s patent quantity and patent quality. Column (5)-(6) demonstrates that the coefficient of lnau on a firm’s management efficiency is significantly positive and the coefficient of m_efficiency on a firm’s CO2 emissions intensity is significantly negaitive, implying that automation can effectively improve a firm’s management efficiency. It supports the hypothesis 3 that automation can reduce a firm’s CO2 emissions intensity by improving its management efficiency.
4.4 Robustness checks
To test the stability of our baseline results, in this part we conduct a series of robustness checks in Table 5, including alternative measurement of CO2 emissions intensity and automation, further dealing with the potential reverse causality problem, deleting outliers, controlling industry-time trend, changing time period of the research sample, controlling trade liberalization effect and constructing the industrial robot density at the firm level.
In the baseline model, CO2 emissions intensity at the firm level equals to the logarithm of the ratio of a firm’s CO2 emissions to its real output, and in column (1) of Table 5, we replace the firm’s output to the real industrial value added, thus constructing a new indicator lnCO2_1. In our baseline results, automation is measured by the robot density. In column (2) of Table 5, this variable is replaced by the robot stock, which is the logged value of the robot stock (lnaustock). To address the endogeneity of the potential reverse causality problem, in column (3) of Table 5, we use a 1-year lag of lnau (l.lnau) to replace lnau and in column (4) of Table 5, we use a 1-year lag of other control variables to replace the original control variables. The results of above robustness checks, which are presented in columns (1)-(4) of Table 5, are consistent with the baseline results, which preliminarily proves the robustness of the results in this paper.
In column (1) of Table 6, we run the baseline model after deleting the top and bottom 1% values of CO2 emissions intensity to avoid the influence of data thick tailed distribution on the coefficient. Considering that the unobservable industry-time trend factors may affect the baseline results, based on the baseline model (1), we further control the industry-time trend in column (2) of Table 6. Figure 4 shows that prior to 2006, the robot density of China’s manufacturing industry remained at zero, and began to increase rapidly after that. In order to avoid the influence of this trend on the estimation results, in column (3) of Table 6, we limit the research sample from 2006 to 2009 and conduct regression again. Considering that the rapid development of automation after 2005 may be caused by trade liberalization, following the previous literature (Lu et al. 2017), in column (4) of Table 6, we control the time trend through introducing the interaction term between the average tariff of the industry and a dummy variable of the year that equals 1 if it is the statistical year and 0 otherwise. In addition, following the idea of standard shift-share or “Bartik” (Bartik 1991), we use the ratio of firm’s employees to the industry’s employees to construct the industrial robot density at the firm level. We then run the baseline model using this indicator as the robustness test. The estimated results are displayed in column (5) of Table 6.
The results of above robustness checks are shown in columns (1)-(5) of Table 6, indicating that they do not alter the interpretation of our main findings regarding that automation can significantly reduce CO2 emissions intensity at the firm level, which further indicates that our finding remains robust after taking into consideration the different kinds of robustness checks.
Finally, due to the availability of data, the time interval of data used for firm level analysis above is 1998–2009. Considering the potential impact of the differences between 1998–2009 and the current period may influence the research conclusion, we further use the data at the industry level from 2006 to 2016Footnote 7 for further robustness test. Specifically, the regression model at the industry level analysis is as follows:
where j and t represent the two-digit CIC industry and year respectively. \({\mathrm{lnCO}}_{{2}_{\mathrm{jt}}}\) is CO2 emissions intensity at the industry level. \({\mathrm{lnau}}_{\mathrm{jt}}\) represents the automation of the two-digit CIC industry and is measured by robot density. \(\overrightarrow{\mathrm{X}}\) represents a vector containing control variables which may potentially affect \({\mathrm{lnCO}}_{{2}_{\mathrm{jt}}}\), including real industry scale (the logged value of real industrial sales), industry structure (the ratio of real industrial sales to total real industrial sales), R&D intensity (the ratio of scientific R&D expenditure to real industrial sales), energy consumption (the logged value of coal consumption), energy intensity (energy consumption per unit of real industrial sales) and export intensity (the ratio of export to real industrial sales). \({\upgamma }_{\mathrm{j}}\) and \({\updelta }_{\mathrm{t}}\) are the industry, and year fixed effects, respectively. \({\upvarepsilon }_{\mathrm{jt}}\) is the error term. The data used in this model mainly come from four sources: China Industrial Economic Statistics Yearbook, China Industrial Statistics Yearbook, China Science and Technology Statistics Yearbook and China Energy Statistics Yearbook.
The estimation results of model (6) are shown in column (6) of Table 6. It shows that the main variable of interest, automation (lnau), is still significantly negative, which indicates that automation can help to reduce CO2 emissions intensity, consistent with the baseline result.
5 Analysis of heterogeneous effects
In this section, we investigate the heterogeneity performance of impact of automation on firms’ CO2 emissions intensity in terms of four dimensions: CO2 emissions intensity, capital factor intensity, the manufacturing servitization and financial crisis.
5.1 High CO2 emissions intensity versus low CO2 emissions intensity
Considering that the impact of automation on CO2 emissions intensity at the firm level may be different due to the extent of CO2 emission intensity in industries. Therefore, we divide the sample into high and low CO2 emissions intensity industries by the average CO2 emissions intensity in all industries (if the industry belongs to the high CO2 emissions intensity industries, emi equals 1, otherwise it equals 0), and we add the interaction term of lnau and emi (lnau × emi) in the model (1). The results are displayed in column (1) of Table 7. It shows that automation has a more significant role in CO2 emissions intensity reduction for firms in industries with high CO2 emissions intensity, but not for firms in industries with low CO2 emissions intensity. This means that in order to make green and low-carbon development come true, automation plays a key role in China’s high CO2 emissions industry.
5.2 Capital-intensive firms versus non-capital-intensive firms
Considering that different capital intensive firms may have different degrees of robot usage, which leads to heterogeneous effects of automation upon firms’ CO2 emissions intensity. We divide the sample into capital-intensive firms (cap == 1) and non-capital-intensive firms (cap == 0), and add the interaction term of lnau and cap (lnau × cap) in the model (1). The regression results are shown in columns (2) of Table 7, which indicates that the coefficients of the interaction term are negative and statistically significant. This indicates that automation has a stronger negative impact on the CO2 emissions intensity of capital-intensive firms. The reason is that compared with non-capital-intensive firms, the resources like capital, technology and other resource elements are more abundant in capital-intensive firms, which can give better play to the promotion effects of automation in technological innovation. According to mechanism analysis above, automation can reduce firms’ CO2 emissions intensity by promoting technological innovation, which means that automation has a stronger negative impact on CO2 emissions intensity of capital-intensive firms.
5.3 High servitization of manufacturing versus Low servitization of manufacturing
Promoting the service-oriented development of manufacturing industry is not only the main trend of the world’s industrialization development, but also an important strategic measure for the upgrading of China’s manufacturing industries. So how firms respond to the combined effect of automation development and the servitization of manufacturing by adjusting their CO2 emissions intensity is worthy of investigation. We use the World Input-Output Database (WIOD) to construct the service-oriented indicators at the industry level (See Table 9 in Appendix for industry conversion details). Based on this indicator, we divide the sample into high servitization of manufacturing (ser == 1) and low servitization of manufacturing (ser == 0) by the mean of all the manufacturing industries. We then add the interaction term of lnau and ser (lnau × ser) in the model (1). The regression results are shown in column (3) of Table7. It shows that the coefficient of interaction term is significantly negative, indicating the reduction effects of automation upon CO2 emissions intensity mainly reflects in firms with high servitization of manufacturing. The main reason is that, on the one hand, many service products, including business training, technology extension and product design, are knowledge intensive and technology intensive, which can play a synergistic role with intelligent robots, bringing a higher level of CO2 emissions reduction while improving production and management efficiency. On the other hand, the in-depth application of services such as financial leasing and logistics can bring auxiliary support for the intelligent development and improvement of firms’ business efficiency, which also helps firms achieve CO2 emissions reduction goals by virtue of automation.
5.4 Pre-global financial crisis versus post-global financial crisis
The global financial crisis in 2008 has brought different degrees of shocks to countries around the world. Therefore, after the crisis, in order to improve the ability to cope with a new round of potential crises and risks, countries around the world started to upgrade the industrial structures. In this process, as an important tool to improve productivity and upgrade the industrial structure, automation is widely applied into production. In order to examine whether the impact of automation on the CO2 emissions intensity of firms is different from that after the crisis, we add the interaction term between the financial crisis (cris, it equals 1 if the statistical year is 2008 and otherwise it equals 0) and automation (lnau) in the model (1). The results are shown in Column (4) of Table 7. It indicates that the coefficient of the interaction term lnau × cris is significantly negative, which means that automation plays a greater role in mitigating firms’ CO2 emissions intensity after the financial crisis.
6 Conclusion
This paper analyzes the impact of automation on firms’ CO2 emissions intensity of China between 1998 and 2009 using data from the China’s Environmental Statistics Database, China’s Industrial Enterprise Database, and the International Federation of Robotics. After carefully empirical analysis with focus on China’s manufacturing firms, we yield a series of conclusions.
First, we find that automation can reduce firms’ CO2 emissions intensity. This relationship is verified to hold over solving endogeneity and various robustness checks, including the use of alternative measures, resetting the time span of research sample, controlling industry-time trend, using industry level data from 2006 to 2016 to expand the sample time to 2016 and so on. Second, the reduction effects of automation on firm CO2 emissions intensity are mainly through promoting technological innovation expressed by patent quantity and patent quality and improving management efficiency. Lastly, through heterogeneous analysis, we find that automation has a greater impact on reducing CO2 emissions intensity of firms in industries with high CO2 emissions intensity. Besides, compared with non-capital-intensive firms, automation can significantly reduce CO2 emissions intensity of capital-intensive firms. Furthermore, the empirical results also show that the reduction effects of automation on firms’ CO2 emissions intensity are mainly reflected in firms of high servitization of manufacturing. Moreover, the mitigating effects of automation have been given greater play on firms’ CO2 emissions intensity after the financial crisis.
With the development of digital technology, automation has gradually become the core technology of the new round of industrial revolution. Our findings have the implications for the sustainable development of developing countries like China who creates great CO2 emissions, indicating the importance of promoting the deep integration of automation technology with manufacturing industries and strengthening the research and development of automation technology, especially in the field of CO2 emissions reduction research.
Notes
ECIU, DDL, NCI&ONZ, “Zero tracker database”, http://www.zerotracker.net
IEA: Global Energy Review 2021. https://www.iea.org/reports/global-energy-review-2021
Due to lacking energy consumption data and poor data quality in 2010 and beyond, the sample interval is from 1998 to 2009. We further use the data at the industry level from 2006 to 2016 for further robustness test.
Due to space limitation, except for baseline regression test, we won’t report the estimated results of control variables in following tables.
Input-output data used to calculate the complete consumption coefficient is drawn from the 2007 National Input and Output Table which published by the National Bureau of Statistics. The reason is that the year 2007 falls in the middle of the sample interval of our research, which can better reflect the industrial correlation.
Due to the availability of data at the industry level, the time span for analysis at the industry level is 2006–2016.
References
Acemoglu, Daron. 2002. Technical change, inequality, and the labor market. Journal of Economic Literature 40 (1): 7–72. https://doi.org/10.1257/0022051026976.
Acemoglu, Daron, and Pascual Restrepo. 2017. Secular stagnation? The effect of aging on economic growth in the age of automation. American Economic Review 107 (5): 174–179. https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.p20171101.
Acemoglu, Daron, and Pascual Restrepo. 2019. Automation and new tasks: How technology displaces and reinstates labor. Journal of Economic Perspectives 33 (2): 3–30. https://doi.org/10.1257/jep.33.2.3.
Acemoglu, Daron, and Pascual Restrepo. 2020. The wrong kind of AI? Artificial intelligence and the future of labour demand. Cambridge Journal of Regions, Economy and Society 13 (1): 25–35. https://doi.org/10.1093/cjres/rsz022.
Aghion, P., C. Antonin, and S. Bunel. 2019. Artificial intelligence, growth and employment: The role of policy. Economie Et Statistique 510 (1): 149–164. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2016.05.032.
Ahmad, Ashfaq, et al. 2016. Carbon emissions, energy consumption and economic growth: An aggregate and disaggregate analysis of the Indian economy. Energy Policy 96: 131–143. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2016.05.032.
Alarfaj, Abdullah F., W. Michael Griffin, and Constantine Samaras. 2020. Decarbonizing US passenger vehicle transport under electrification and automation uncertainty has a travel budget. Environmental Research Letters 15.9: 0940c2. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/ab7c89.
Ang, James B. 2009. CO2 emissions, research and technology transfer in China. Ecological Economics 68 (10): 2658–2665. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2009.05.002.
Autor, David, and Anna Salomons. 2018. Is automation labor-displacing? Productivity growth, employment, and the labor share. No. w24871. National Bureau of Economic Research. https://doi.org/10.3386/w24871.
Bakhriddinovna, Aminova Niginabonu. 2021. The impact of the digital economy on resource consumption. Eurasian Journal of Learning and Academic Teaching 1 (1): 23–27.
Bartik, Timothy J. 1991. Who benefits from state and local economic development policies? Kalamazoo: WE Upjohn Institute for Employment Research.
Boh, Wai Fong, Roberto Evaristo, and Andrew Ouderkirk. 2014. Balancing breadth and depth of expertise for innovation: A 3M story. Research Policy 43(2): 349–366. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2013.10.009.
Brandt, Loren, Johannes Van Biesebroeck, and Yifan Zhang. 2012. Creative accounting or creative destruction? Firm-level productivity growth in Chinese manufacturing. Journal of Development Economics 97 (2): 339–351. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdeveco.2011.02.002.
Cai, Shun, Xi Chen, and Indranil Bose. 2013. Exploring the role of IT for environmental sustainability in China: An empirical analysis. International Journal of Production Economics 146(2): 491–500. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2013.01.030.
Chen, Xing, and Boqiang Lin. 2021. Towards carbon neutrality by implementing carbon emissions trading scheme: Policy evaluation in China. Energy Policy 157: 112510. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2021.112510.
Cherniwchan, Jevan. 2017. Trade liberalization and the environment: Evidence from NAFTA and US manufacturing. Journal of International Economics 105: 130–149. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jinteco.2017.01.005.
Ciocoiu, Carmen Nadia. 2011. Integrating digital economy and green economy: Opportunities for sustainable development. Theoretical and Empirical Researches in Urban Management 6.1: 33–43. https://www.jstor.org/stable/24873273.
Cockburn, Iain M., Rebecca Henderson, and Scott Stern. 2018. The impact of artificial intelligence on innovation: An exploratory analysis. In The economics of artificial intelligence: An agenda. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Cole, Matthew A., et al. 2013. The carbon dioxide emissions of firms: A spatial analysis. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 65 (2): 290–309. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeem.2012.07.002.
Du, Gang, et al. 2018. A test of environmental Kuznets curve for haze pollution in China: Evidence from the penal data of 27 capital cities. Journal of Cleaner Production 205: 821–827. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.08.330.
Du, Kerui, Pengzhen Li, and Zheming Yan. 2019. Do green technology innovations contribute to carbon dioxide emission reduction? Empirical evidence from patent data. Technological Forecasting and Social Change 146: 297–303. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2019.06.010.
Feenstra, Robert C., Zhiyuan Li, and Yu Miaojie. 2014. Exports and credit constraints under incomplete information: Theory and evidence from China. Review of Economics and Statistics 96 (4): 729–744. https://doi.org/10.1162/REST_a_00405.
Forslid, Rikard, Toshihiro Okubo, and Karen Helene Ulltveit-Moe. 2018. Why are firms that export cleaner? International trade, abatement and environmental emissions. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 91: 166–183. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeem.2018.07.006.
Gaggl, Paul, and Greg C. Wright. 2017. A short-run view of what computers do: Evidence from a UK tax incentive. American Economic Journal: Applied Economics 9 (3): 262–294. https://doi.org/10.1257/app.20150411.
Ghane, Alireza, Mehdi Mazaheri, and Jamal Mohammad Vali Samani. 2016. Location and release time identification of pollution point source in river networks based on the Backward Probability Method. Journal of Environmental Management 180: 164–171. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2016.05.015.
Graetz, Georg, and Guy Michaels. 2018. Robots at work. Review of Economics and Statistics 100 (5): 753–768. https://doi.org/10.1162/rest_a_00754.
Grossman, Gene M., and Alan B. Krueger. 1991. Environmental impacts of a North American free trade agreement. In NBER working paper no.3914. https://doi.org/10.3386/w3914.
Guo, Jie, Le-Le Zou, and Yi-Ming Wei. 2010. Impact of inter-sectoral trade on national and global CO2 emissions: An empirical analysis of China and US. Energy Policy 38 (3): 1389–1397. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2009.11.020.
Guozhen, Wei, et al. 2016. Source identification of sudden contamination based on the parameter uncertainty analysis. Journal of Hydroinformatics 18 (6): 919–927. https://doi.org/10.2166/hydro.2016.002.
Hashmi, Rubayyat, and Khorshed Alam. 2019. Dynamic relationship among environmental regulation, innovation, CO2 emissions, population, and economic growth in OECD countries: A panel investigation. Journal of Cleaner Production 231: 1100–1109. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.05.325.
Hémous, David, and Morten Olsen. 2022. The rise of the machines: Automation, horizontal innovation, and income inequality. American Economic Journal: Macroeconomics 14 (1): 179–223. https://doi.org/10.1257/mac.20160164.
Henderson, Peter, et al. 2020. Towards the systematic reporting of the energy and carbon footprints of machine learning. The Journal of Machine Learning Research 21 (1): 10039–10081.
Javaid, Mohd, et al. 2021. Substantial capabilities of robotics in enhancing industry 4.0 implementation. Cognitive Robotics 1: 58–75. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cogr.2021.06.001.
Khuntia, Jiban, et al. 2018. Information technology and sustainability: Evidence from an emerging economy. Production and Operations Management 27 (4): 756–773. https://doi.org/10.1111/poms.12822.
Kuang, Yunming, and Boqiang Lin. 2021. Public participation and city sustainability: Evidence from Urban Garbage Classification in China. Sustainable Cities and Society 67: 102741. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2021.102741.
Li, Man. 2010. Decomposing the change of CO2 emissions in China: A distance function approach. Ecological Economics 70 (1): 77–85. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2010.07.034.
Li, Ke, and Zhujun Jiang. 2016. The impacts of removing energy subsidies on economy-wide rebound effects in China: An input-output analysis. Energy Policy 98: 62–72. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2016.08.015.
Li, Yan, et al. 2020. Sharing economy to improve routing for urban logistics distribution using electric vehicles. Resources, Conservation and Recycling 153: 104585. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2019.104585.
Li, Jinlin, et al. 2022a. Digital economy, technological innovation, and green economic efficiency—Empirical evidence from 277 cities in China. Managerial and Decision Economics 43 (3): 616–629. https://doi.org/10.1002/mde.3406.
Li, Yaya, et al. 2022b. Carbon emission reduction effects of industrial robot applications: Heterogeneity characteristics and influencing mechanisms. Technology in Society 70: 102034. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techsoc.2022.102034.
Liu, Lan-Cui, et al. 2011. China’s carbon emissions from urban and rural households during 1992–2007. Journal of Cleaner Production 19 (15): 1754–1762. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2011.06.011.
Liu, Zhu, et al. 2015. Reduced carbon emission estimates from fossil fuel combustion and cement production in China. Nature 524 (7565): 335–338.
Liu, Jun, et al. 2020. Influence of artificial intelligence on technological innovation: Evidence from the panel data of China’s manufacturing sectors. Technological Forecasting and Social Change 158: 120142. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2020.120142.
Liu, Baolong, and Pietro De Giovanni. 2019. Green process innovation through Industry 4.0 technologies and supply chain coordination. Annals of Operations Research 1–36. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10479-019-03498-3.
Lu, Yi, Zhigang Tao, and Lianming Zhu. 2017. Identifying FDI spillovers. Journal of International Economics 107: 75–90. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jinteco.2017.01.006.
Ma, Qiang, Muntasir Murshed, and Zeeshan Khan. 2021. The nexuses between energy investments, technological innovations, emission taxes, and carbon emissions in China. Energy Policy 155: 112345. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2021.112345.
Meng, Lei, et al. 2011. China’s regional CO2 emissions: Characteristics, inter-regional transfer and emission reduction policies. Energy Policy 39 (10): 6136–6144. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2011.07.013.
Moyer, Jonathan D., and Barry B. Hughes. 2012. ICTs: Do they contribute to increased carbon emissions? Technological Forecasting and Social Change 79 (5): 919–931. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2011.12.005.
Nguyen, Thong Trung, Thu Anh Thi Pham, and Huong Thi Xuan Tram. 2020. Role of information and communication technologies and innovation in driving carbon emissions and economic growth in selected G-20 countries. Journal of Environmental Management 261: 110162. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2020.110162.
Qin, Zhangcai, et al. 2021. Natural climate solutions for China: The last mile to carbon neutrality. Advances in Atmospheric Sciences 38 (6): 889–895. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00376-021-1031-0.
Richter, Philipp M., and Alexander Schiersch. 2017. CO2 emission intensity and exporting: Evidence from firm-level data. European Economic Review 98: 373–391. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.euroecorev.2017.07.011.
Shan, Yuli, et al. 2018. China CO2 emission accounts 1997–2015. Scientific Data 5 (1): 1–14.
St Louis, Robert D., and Joseph A. Cazier. 2010. Green business and online price premiums: Will consumers pay more to purchase from environmentally friendly technology companies? In AMCIS 2010 Proceedings, 224. https://aisel.aisnet.org/amcis2010/224.
Strubell, Emma, Ananya Ganesh, and Andrew McCallum. 2019. Energy and policy considerations for deep learning in NLP. arXiv preprint arXiv:1906.02243. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1906.02243.
Su, Bin, and Beng Wah Ang. 2015. Multiplicative decomposition of aggregate carbon intensity change using input–output analysis. Applied Energy 154: 13–20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2015.04.101.
Trajtenberg, Manuel. 2018. Artificial intelligence as the next GPT: A political-economy perspective. In The economics of artificial intelligence: An agenda, 175–186. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Van den Bergh, Jeroen C.J.M. 2011. Environment versus growth—A criticism of “degrowth” and a plea for “a-growth.” Ecological Economics 70 (5): 881–890. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2010.09.035.
Vannuccini, Simone, and Ekaterina Prytkova. 2021. Artificial intelligence’s new clothes? From general purpose technology to large technical system.
Wang, Zhaohua, et al. 2012. Energy technology patents–CO2 emissions nexus: An empirical analysis from China. Energy Policy 42: 248–260. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2011.11.082.
Wang, Chunhua, Wu JunJie, and Bing Zhang. 2018. Environmental regulation, emissions and productivity: Evidence from Chinese COD-emitting manufacturers. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 92: 54–73. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeem.2018.08.004.
Wang, En-Ze, Chien-Chiang Lee, and Yaya Li. 2022. Assessing the impact of industrial robots on manufacturing energy intensity in 38 countries. Energy Economics 105: 105748. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eneco.2021.105748.
Wang, Zhenguo, et al. 2020. China’s aggregate embodied CO2 emission intensity from 2007 to 2012: A multi-region multiplicative structural decomposition analysis. Energy Economics 85: 104568. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eneco.2019.104568.
Wen, Shibin, and Hongman Liu. 2022. Research on energy conservation and carbon emission reduction effects and mechanism: Quasi-experimental evidence from China. Energy Policy 169: 113180. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2022.113180.
Yang, Lisha, and Zhi Li. 2017. Technology advance and the carbon dioxide emission in China-Empirical research based on the rebound effect. Energy Policy 101: 150–161. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2016.11.020.
Yang, Guanglei, et al. 2020. Exploring the nonlinear association between environmental regulation and carbon intensity in China: The mediating effect of green technology. Ecological Indicators 114: 106309. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2020.106309.
Ye, Zhiping, et al. 2020. Tackling environmental challenges in pollution controls using artificial intelligence: A review. Science of the Total Environment 699: 134279. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.134279.
Yu, Miaojie. 2015. Processing trade, tariff reductions and firm productivity: Evidence from Chinese firms. The Economic Journal 125 (585): 943–988. https://doi.org/10.1111/ecoj.12127.
Yu, Yang, and Du Yu. 2019. Impact of technological innovation on CO2 emissions and emissions trend prediction on ‘New Normal’ economy in China. Atmospheric Pollution Research 10 (1): 152–161. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apr.2018.07.005.
Zhang, Chuanguo, and Yan Lin. 2012. Panel estimation for urbanization, energy consumption and CO2 emissions: A regional analysis in China. Energy Policy 49: 488–498. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2012.06.048.
Zhang, Xing-Ping, et al. 2012. Decomposition of aggregate CO2 emissions within a joint production framework. Energy Economics 34 (4): 1088–1097. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eneco.2011.09.006.
Zhang, Yue-Jun, et al. 2014. The impact of economic growth, industrial structure and urbanization on carbon emission intensity in China. Natural Hazards 73: 579–595.
Zhang, Yue-Jun, et al. 2017. Can environmental innovation facilitate carbon emissions reduction? Evidence from China. Energy Policy 100: 18–28.
Zhang, Wei, et al. 2022. Digital economy and carbon emission performance: Evidence at China’s city level. Energy Policy 165: 112927. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2022.112927.
Acknowledgements
We acknowledge financial support from National Social Science Foundation (21&ZD098) and National Natural Science Foundation of China Project (NO: 72073025; 71873031).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
Yue Lu initiated the idea. Yue Lu and Jilin Tian wrote the paper together. Yue Lu and Minghui Ma contributed to the idea development and the data analysis together. The author(s) read and approved the final manuscript.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Competing interests
We declare that we have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.
Additional information
Publisher’s Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
About this article
Cite this article
Lu, Y., Tian, J. & Ma, M. The effect of automation on firms’ carbon dioxide emissions of China. DESD 1, 8 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s44265-023-00005-2
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s44265-023-00005-2