1. Introduction

Green growth refers to the idea that continued economic growth can be achieved sustainably, as technological progress and substitution will allow decoupling of gross domestic product (GDP) from carbon emissions and resource use. Globally, green growth is the dominant economic paradigm to address sustainability challenges. The green growth approach is endorsed by international institutions such as the World Bank or the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) of the United Nations [1,2]. Critics of green growth are often representatives of a field coined post-growth and emphasize other modes of global economic development such as degrowth or agrowth [3,4]. Whether the targets for mitigating environmental problems are set within a growth or post-growth paradigm has substantial implications for the types of policies proposed [5,6]. In this context, we survey economic and environmental science researchers to assess their beliefs about the feasibility of global green growth and explore the factors that are associated with these beliefs.

Prevailing and worsening environmental conditions such as the crossing of six out of nine planetary boundaries (e.g., climate change and biosphere integrity) have raised questions of systemic transformations of the economy [7,8]. In recent reports, the intergovernmental bodies addressing the science-policy interface for biodiversity and ecosystem services (IPBES) and climate change (IPCC) both include green growth as well as degrowth policies to mitigate environmental pressures [9,10]. Recent surveys with climate and sustainability policy researchers seem to indicate that post-growth is the most prevalent perspective among these researchers for high-income countries [11,12]. Although agrowth (i.e., focusing on human and environmental well-being while remaining neutral toward the impacts on economic growth [4]) is a widespread position in academia, economic growth and its environmental implications remains a central topic: For a large-scale implementation of post-growth policies, the prevailing dependence on GDP growth would need to be overcome to secure social welfare [13,14]. Thus, the topic of the direction of economic development remains relevant and researchers’ views may influence this debate. Investigating researchers’ green growth beliefs, along with associated factors such as knowledge, views on environmental measures, and socio-demographic characteristics, can shed light on what potentially influences these beliefs and their potential policy implications.

Building on previous calls to explore the perspectives of a broad academic community and the factors influencing green growth endorsement [11,15], this study revisits the perceived possibility of green growth and its main points of criticism among researchers. We expand on prior work by significantly enlarging the participant pool, including academic experts in the fields of Economics, Econometrics, and Finance, as well as Environmental Science. Compared to previous research, we focus more on the perceived possibility of green growth than on preferences regarding sustainability strategies (i.e., green growth, agrowth or degrowth). Our focus lies on investigating whether environmental and economic researchers consider green growth and its underlying assumptions to be achievable. Additionally, we examine factors associated with green growth beliefs. This research contributes to the continued assessment of green growth beliefs extending it to a broader scientific community.

Our data stems from a global survey of 3,028 active academic researchers in 101 countries — identified as having published in leading, peer-reviewed journals. We recruited researchers who actively publish their research in highly-ranked, peer-reviewed journals in the fields of Economics, Econometrics, and Finance or Environmental Science (i.e., Scopus classification). We selected these fields given their epistemic proximity to the topic of green growth. We systematically investigate explanatory factors associated with the belief in the feasibility of green growth, thereby going beyond previous survey studies on green growth beliefs among academic experts [11,12,15].

2. Background

Many definitions of green growth exist. According to the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), “green growth means fostering economic growth and development, while ensuring that natural assets continue to provide the resources and environmental services on which our well-being relies” [6]. The definition highlights that green policies can be aligned with economic growth. Definitions of green growth often extend beyond environmental considerations to include social dimensions, emphasizing improved well-being as a key goal [16]. The green growth concept has influenced policy-making across diverse countries [17]. Policies aimed at promoting innovation, development and new industrial sectors are commonly proposed under this concept [18,19]. Such policies often involve policy instruments such as carbon pricing, cap and trade schemes, or subsidies. The selection of specific policy instruments is context-dependent and varies across countries. For instance, high-income countries may prioritize technological innovation and decarbonization strategies, while low-income countries focus on poverty alleviation, infrastructure development, and reduced vulnerability to environmental risks [6,20].

Proponents of green growth argue that GDP is a key predictor of successful environmental policy and therefore environmental performance can best be improved under conditions of relatively high wealth and growth [21]. In addition, economic prosperity is said to facilitate technological development, which may solve environmental issues through innovation [22,23]. The green growth approach can be described as successful if an absolute decoupling of environmental pressures from GDP growth has been achieved on a permanent basis on a global scale [24]. In this context, absolute decoupling means that environmental pressures are mitigated without a corresponding decrease in GDP growth. Models suggest that a low-carbon, dematerialized global economy with GDP growth is achievable through policies promoting resource-efficient technologies and practices that reduce carbon emissions [25]. There are examples of countries that have achieved an absolute decoupling of certain resources over a certain time period. For example, France, the United States and the United Kingdom achieved an absolute decoupling of GDP growth and energy consumption between 2005 and 2015 [26]. In terms of absolute decoupling of CO₂ emissions from GDP growth, an analysis of the total emissions of 30 OECD countries between 2001 and 2015 shows that GDP increased by 70.6% during this period, while CO₂ emissions fell by 3.8% [27].

However, the green growth paradigm also receives fundamental criticism. Criticism of green growth follows three central arguments. First, critics question the notion that ever-continued economic expansion is conducive to human well-being and argue that GDP should be rejected as a measure of well-being [28]. Second, critics argue that the pace at which the global economy is decoupling from carbon emissions is insufficient to effectively meet the target of keeping global warming below 2 °C, as set forth by the Paris Agreement. Empirical analyses show that insufficient decoupling-rates are evident in various high-income countries [29]. Third, critics emphasize the additional need of decoupling economic growth from all major environmental pressures, such as biodiversity loss or water pollutants [24]. Despite frequent relative decoupling of countries from material use, recent research found no empirical evidence supporting the achievement of absolute decoupling from resource use on a global scale amidst ongoing economic growth [30,31].

An alternative proposition to a green growth approach is degrowth. There are various definitions of degrowth. Degrowth can be defined as an “equitable downscaling of production and consumption that increases human well-being and enhances ecological conditions at the local and global level, in the short and long term” [32]. The degrowth concept posits that it is possible to transition to and live well within an alternative political-economic system that has a vastly reduced resource throughput [3]. The downscaling of production and consumption is what mainly sets degrowth apart from the green growth concept [33]. In contrast to green growth, which focuses more on market-based approaches, the state is expected to intervene more strongly in degrowth scenarios, for example through environmental regulations and the provision of public services. The most frequent mentioned degrowth policy instruments in the academic literature are the introduction of universal basic incomes, work-time reductions, job guarantees with a living wage, maximum income caps, and declining caps on resource use and emissions [5]. No nation has implemented a comprehensive degrowth strategy, but the concept has gained attention in academic and policy discussions. For example the European Commission has shown interest in how an economy can be organized that is not based on GDP growth by co-sponsoring the Beyond Growth Conference in the European Parliament in May 2023 [34].

The concept of degrowth has also faced fundamental criticisms, with three issues standing out. First, the field has been described as underdeveloped in terms of research related to policymaking [35]. Degrowth encompasses a broad range of goals, objectives, and instruments, but critiques frequently point to a lack of precision in its proposals [5]. In particular, the absence of specific monetary and distributional policy proposals has been identified as a significant gap [36]. Second, degrowth has been criticized for its limited public and stakeholder support [37]. Studies on public opinion indicate that citizens tend to favor green growth over degrowth as an economic approach [38–40]. Third, concerns have been raised about the research methods employed within the field [37]. The field has been described as largely descriptive, with criticisms pointing to a lack of rigorous hypothesis testing, as well as limited use of modeling and empirical assessments [41].

Another perspective critical of green growth but occupying a middle ground between degrowth and green growth is growth agnosticism, often referred to as agrowth. Agrowth advocates for an alternative to the growth paradigm that prioritizes human and environmental well-being while remaining neutral toward the impacts on economic growth [4]. Proponents of agrowth consider the trajectory of GDP irrelevant as long as society achieves the social and environmental goals necessary for sustainability. Rather than emphasizing green growth or a reduction of material and energy throughput, agrowth reverses the causality: it suggests starting with robust environmental policies, which may or may not result in a decline in GDP growth [4].

A few studies have surveyed researchers’ beliefs and opinions about the relationship between economic growth and environmental conditions. Recent surveys among climate and sustainability researchers indicate a preference for post-growth perspectives in high-income countries. For example, a study among climate policy researchers found that 45% aligned with an agrowth perspective, 28% with a degrowth position, and 27% with green growth [11]. Similarly, a survey involving researchers publishing on the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) revealed that post-growth approaches were favored for high-income (77%) and upper-middle-income countries (59%) during the 2020s [12]. Within this post-growth category, agrowth was the preferred approach for both high-income (56%, compared to 21% for degrowth) and upper-middle-income (51%, compared to 8% for degrowth) countries [12]. By contrast, green growth was the dominant preference for low-income (58%) and lower-middle-income (64%) countries during the same period. A broader study, which included researchers beyond those specializing in climate policy or SDGs, reported that 42% supported green growth, 31% favored agrowth, and 17% preferred zero growth or degrowth [15]. Overall, these studies highlight substantial support for growth agnostic approaches and greater endorsement of post-growth positions among climate and sustainability policy researchers, compared to researchers from broader environmental and economic fields.

Previous research on beliefs about green growth among researchers has identified some factors associated with these views. Political ideology appears to play a significant role in shaping opinions on the growth-environment debate, with a preference for green growth being more common among individuals leaning toward the right on the political spectrum [15]. The same study found that expertise, measured by the number of publications on growth and the environment, accounted for only a small degree of variation in researchers’ views. Additionally, higher national income levels have been associated with increased skepticism toward green growth [11]. Gender was not found to have an influence on preferences for economic paradigms in high-income countries, though men expressed a greater preference for green growth over post-growth approaches in upper-middle and lower-middle-income countries [12]. The disciplinary background can also influence preferences: economists (excluding ecological economists) and applied or formal scientists (mostly engineers) showed a stronger inclination toward green growth, while researchers with backgrounds in ecological economics, natural sciences, or social sciences were more likely to favor post-growth approaches [11,15].

3. Materials and methods

The Scopus database of Elsevier was used to identify academic experts in the subject areas Economics, Econometrics, and Finance, as well as Environmental Science [42]. Academics were considered experts if they were corresponding authors of at least one published article in one of the top 100 peer-reviewed journals of their respective subject areas between 2018 and 2022. Journals were ranked using CiteScore, which reflects the average annual number of citations of recently published articles in various academic journals (see overview of journals in S1 Text). These criteria yielded a total of 24,838 experts in Economics, Econometrics, and Finance and 112,646 experts in Environmental Science. Due to the imbalance between subject areas, only the top 25,000 Environmental Science experts, determined by the citation count of their articles, were invited to the study. Emails with a Qualtrics survey link were distributed in batches from February 21, 2023 to March 23, 2023 [43]. The email invitation was sent to 49,838 authors including two reminders one and two weeks after the initial invitation.

A total of 3,028 researchers from 101 countries progressed far enough in the study to be included in the data analysis, resulting in a response rate of 6.08%, which aligns with response rates reported in similar studies [44]. Respondents exhibited reasonable similarity across all characteristics compared to all invited authors. Nonetheless, an analysis of their current affiliations’ continents showed an overrepresentation of European-based scientists in our survey, while Asian-based scientists were found to be underrepresented (see Table A, B, and Fig A in S1 Text).

After providing written consent to participate in the study by ticking a box, respondents were given a definition of global green growth and assessed its global feasibility with a binary yes or no question. The binary question on the perceived global feasibility of green growth was included to establish a clear and direct measure of respondents’ overall stance. This simplicity allows for a straightforward aggregation of responses and serves as a baseline indicator of agreement or disagreement with the feasibility of green growth. Such a design is commonly used in social sciences to facilitate surveys and avoid respondent fatigue, which can occur when questions are overly complex or nuanced [45]. While the binary question provides a clear overall indicator, scholars’ views on green growth might be more complex. To capture these complexities, we designed additional questions that probe deeper into respondents’ perspectives: Respondents indicated how strongly they agreed with three central points of green growth criticism on a Likert scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree) as well as their position on a spectrum from 0 (= environmental issues can best be mitigated in a non-growing global economy) to 100 (= environmental issues can best be mitigated in a growing global economy). The respondents rated the potential of various measures to help mitigate environmental issues (e.g., technological advances). Also, they were asked to list up to nine environmental issues that they considered relevant. Responses were later grouped into twelve categories. For a concise overview, see SI methods. The full questionnaire is also in the S1 Text file.

We conducted a series of descriptive analyses to highlight areas where academic experts tend to agree and where opinions differ the most including significance tests. We found significant correlations (p <.001) with mostly medium effect sizes between the responses to the binary question about the possibility of green growth and the Likert-scale questions about green growth criticisms, as well as between responses to the binary question and the positions on the 0–100 spectrum (see Table G in S1 Text). This consistency indicates that the binary green growth question aligns well with the broader range of respondent perspectives captured by the survey. We also employed an ordinary least squares regression to evaluate how different variables affect the endorsement of green growth, i.e., whether environmental issues can best be mitigated in a global non-growing or growing economy. For a description of all variables used in the regression refer to Table C in S1 Text. Our study was approved by the local ethics committee (University of Bern, Faculty of Business, Economic, and Social Science, approval number: 342022) and conducted in line with the Declaration of Helsinki.

4. Results

Is it possible to increase GDP while keeping resource use and carbon emissions constant or reducing them on a global level? 59% of respondents do believe in the feasibility of green growth on a global level. The share of academics endorsing the possibility of green growth was higher among economists (69%; Scopus fields “economics, econometrics, and finance” and “business, management, and accounting”) compared to other academic disciplines (51%; labelled in the following as non-economists; Fig 1A and Fig E in S1 Text). A further breakdown of scientific disciplines shows that the proportion of researchers who believe in the possibility of green growth is highest in the disciplinary field Economics, Econometrics and Finance at 74% and lowest in Earth and Planetary Sciences at 41% (see Fig 2).

Download:

• PPT
  PowerPoint slide
• PNG
  larger image
• TIFF
  original image

Fig 1. (A) Green growth belief. A pre-registered test of difference between economists (n = 1,202) and non-economists (n =1,776) was statistically significant (χ² = 98.01, df = 1, p <.001). (B) Green Growth Criticism. Welch two-sample t-tests suggest that beliefs about the possibility of decoupling from material and energy use on a global level (t(2,362.5) = 22.60, p <.001) and before 2°C of global warming (t(2,328.2) = 24.62, p <.001) as well as that growth is essential for well-being (t(2,073.1) = 24.44, p <.001) significantly differ between green growth believers and non-believers (n = 2,370).

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pclm.0000597.g001

Download:

• PPT
  PowerPoint slide
• PNG
  larger image
• TIFF
  original image

Fig 2. Green growth belief across disciplinary fields.

Proportion of researchers who believe in the possibility of global green growth by disciplinary field. Only disciplinary fields with n > 50 are displayed. Overall sample size is n = 2,778.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pclm.0000597.g002

How do respondents assess the three main criticisms of green growth? Across all respondents, there is a tendency to agree that economic growth is essential to increase people’s well-being. Researchers with disciplinary field Economics, Econometrics and Finance show on average the highest level of agreement with the statement that economic growth is essential to increase people’s well-being, whereas researchers with disciplinary field Agricultural and Biological Sciences show the highest level of disagreement with this statement (see Fig J in S1 Text). Grouped by continent affiliation, researchers from Africa and Asia agree with the statement the most on average, researchers from Europe and Oceania the least (see Fig F in S1 Text).

Overall, respondents tend to disagree that green growth can keep global warming below 2 °C compared to pre-industrial levels and tend to disagree that an absolute decoupling of GDP from material and energy use is possible on a global scale (see Fig D in S1 Text). With regard to limiting global warming well below 2 °C, researchers from Agricultural and Biological Sciences and Social Sciences are the most skeptical, whereas Engineering and Economics, Econometrics and Finance researchers are the most optimistic that this goal can be achieved (see Fig I in S1 Text). The grouping of researchers by continent shows very little variation, on average all continent groups tend to disagree that this goal can be achieved (see Fig F in S1 Text). With regard to the absolute decoupling of material and energy use on a global level, the grouping by continent also shows a very uniform picture, with all groups on average tending to disagree that this kind of decoupling is possible (see Fig F in S1 Text). Grouped by disciplinary field, there is also little variation on this criticism, with each disciplinary field tending on average to assume that an absolute decoupling of material and resource use is not possible on a global level (see Fig H in S1 Text).

As shown in Fig 1B, the ratings of these three points of green growth criticism significantly differ between green growth believers and non-believers. Yet, even among those who endorse green growth, there is considerable variation regarding the perceived feasibility of absolute decoupling from material and energy use, as well as a decoupling before reaching 2 °C of global warming. Moreover, respondents who believe in the possibility of green growth tend to agree more strongly that economic growth is essential for human well-being.

The linear regression analysis in Fig 3 shows that the strongest factor linked to green growth endorsement is the belief that continued economic growth is essential for people’s well-being. The beliefs that absolute decoupling from material and energy use is possible on a global level and that decoupling can be fast enough to stay below global warming of 2 °C are also associated with a higher belief in green growth.

Download:

• PPT
  PowerPoint slide
• PNG
  larger image
• TIFF
  original image

Fig 3. Predictors for the belief in green growth.

The figure presents ordinary least squares estimates and 95% confidence intervals. Robust standard errors are in parentheses. The dependent variable (DV) is the answer to the question whether environmental issues can best be mitigated in a non-growing (0) or growing (100) global economy. DV and numeric predictors were z-standardized. The regression only considers respondents who had no missing values across all predictor variables (n = 1,947). The proportion of green growth believers remains the same across all analyses (see Table B in S1 Text). Reference categories for gender is male, for continent Europe, for living area rural, for academic background non-economists, and for career stage PhD or earlier. Further details on all variables are presented in the S1 Text. * p <.05, ** p <.01, *** p <.001.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pclm.0000597.g003

Beliefs about the impact of measures to mitigate environmental problems are also associated with the endorsement of green growth. A higher belief in the potential of market-based solutions, technological advances, and social innovation to help mitigate environmental issues is linked to an emphasis on green growth. The belief that civil disobedience can alleviate environmental problems is associated with significantly less green growth endorsement.

With regard to socio-demographic variables, more academic experience — measured through career stage — is associated with green growth endorsement while age or academic productivity (i.e., h-index) are not. Being an academic from Asia (reference category Europe) is linked to green growth endorsement. Finally, having a right-leaning political ideology, being religious or male is significantly related to green growth endorsement. Having a background in economics leads to significantly stronger belief in green growth.

We also analyzed whether prior knowledge about green growth or planetary boundaries [46] has an influence on the endorsement of green growth beliefs. Prior to our study, 81.5% of respondents were familiar with the concept of green growth. Excluding respondents who were not familiar with green growth does not change the percentage split between those who endorse green growth and those who do not. Prior familiarity with green growth did not influence its perceived feasibility (Fig 3). However, listing fewer environmental issues relates to green growth endorsement.

5. Discussion

Despite the ubiquitous reliance on green growth for policy and economic development, there is no clear consensus among academic experts whether green growth is a feasible path for sustainable development. Even academics who in principle endorse green growth show variation with regard to some of green growth’s definitional requirements, such as absolute and timely decoupling both from carbon emissions and other material resources. This aligns with previous research, which found that researchers tend to express greater skepticism about growth when considering specific challenges, such as meeting the 2 °C climate target, compared to addressing environmental problems more broadly [15]. Similarly, the association between endorsement of green growth and alignment with right-leaning political views observed in this study is consistent with earlier findings [15]. However, the single strongest factor associated with green growth endorsement in our study is the belief that continued GDP growth is essential for human well-being, a link that is academically contested [47–49].

Compared to recent studies on green growth preferences [11,12], our findings reveal a relatively high level of green growth endorsement. One possible explanation for this result is our focus on the perceived possibility of green growth compared to previous research that focused on preferences regarding sustainability strategies (e.g., green growth, agrowth, or degrowth). This difference might have been particularly relevant for the answers of the large group of growth agnostics identified in previous research: Despite their indifference toward GDP growth, they may still lean toward believing in the possibility of green growth. Another contributing factor could be the composition of our sample. Unlike recent studies, which surveyed climate and sustainability policy experts [11,12], our research included a broader range of disciplines. Our study results show large variations in green growth endorsement across scientific disciplines, with the highest green growth endorsement by researchers from the field Economics, Econometrics and Finance (74%) and the lowest from researchers in the field Earth and Planetary Sciences (41%). The fact that our data does only allow to distinguish two disciplinary fields in the economic domain is a limitation of our study and should be addressed in future research.

Researchers from different fields may possess distinct knowledge bases and ideological perspectives, potentially shaping their views on green growth. Notably, listing a greater number of environmental issues perceived as relevant was associated with lower green growth endorsement, while self-reported familiarity with the concept showed no significant relationship. It cannot be ruled out that in the question on the possibility of green growth, more researchers with a growth agnostic perspective than with a green growth or degrowth perspective tended to drop out of the survey. Thus, the percentage figures on green growth beliefs should be interpreted with caution. Despite this, we assume the ratio of green growth believers to skeptics remains reliable for the target group under investigation, as do the factors associated with these beliefs. Future research could focus on exploring the beliefs of the growth agnostic group regarding the possibility of green growth and examine how different types of knowledge influence green growth endorsement.

Due to the correlational nature of our cross-sectional survey, our research cannot speak to the causes of green growth endorsement. However, the fact that green growth endorsement correlates with the belief that economic growth is essential for well-being may point to the fact that such beliefs stem from a common framework (e.g., ideology, free market beliefs).

It is not clear if green growth is possible. But the importance of this topic is undeniable, because many influential policies are based on green growth beliefs. Our survey findings show that many academics endorse the concept of green growth, often linked to the scientifically contested belief that growth is essential for human well-being. Our findings underscore the continued need for a robust empirical assessment of expert opinion on green growth.

Supporting information