Global value chain participation impacts carbon emissions—Take the electro-optical equipment industry as an example

This study selects the electro-optical equipment manufacturing industry as an example to explore whether participation in the global value chain increases or mitigates a country’s carbon emissions and describes the impacting factors. Based on multi-regional input-output tables, a value-added decomposition model is used to decompose forward and backward value-added/final products of the world’s electro-optical equipment manufacturing industries in 65 countries from 2005 to 2015. Impacts of several global value chain participation characteristics, including position, forward participation and production length, and backward participation and production length, on a country’s carbon emissions, are examined. The results show that Asian countries have the highest participation rate in the global value chain, both forward and backward, of the electro-optical equipment sector with increasing proportions for forward participation, but lowest backward participation, in simple global value chains. An increase in forward global value chain participation contributes to the reducing carbon emission intensity of the electro-optical equipment manufacturing industry, particularly in terms of simple global value chain participation. On the other hand, the production length of the backward simple global value chain is positively correlated with the total imported carbon emission intensity, indicating that the longer the simple global value chain of foreign production is included in the industry’s imported intermediate products and the lower the country’s position in the global value chain is, the higher its imported carbon emission intensity is. Upgrade in the global value chain is able to reduce the embodied carbon emissions in the intermediate product exports and total imports.

[1]  Muhammad Umar,et al.  Understanding the dynamics of resource curse in G7 countries: The role of natural resource rents and the three facets of financial development , 2021 .

[2]  Muhammad Umar,et al.  The competing role of natural gas and oil as fossil fuel and the non-linear dynamics of resource curse in Russia , 2021 .

[3]  Muhammad Umar,et al.  The impact of resource curse on banking efficiency: Evidence from twelve oil producing countries , 2021 .

[4]  S. Mallapaty How China could be carbon neutral by mid-century , 2020, Nature.

[5]  D. Guan,et al.  Embodied carbon emissions in the supply chains of multinational enterprises , 2020, Nature Climate Change.

[6]  Khalid Khan,et al.  A review of resource curse burden on inflation in Venezuela , 2020 .

[7]  R. Fei,et al.  How GVC division affects embodied carbon emissions in China’s exports? , 2020, Environmental Science and Pollution Research.

[8]  Jing Wang,et al.  Participation in GVCs and CO2 emissions , 2019, Energy Economics.

[9]  Yi-Ming Wei,et al.  A multi-regional input-output table mapping China's economic outputs and interdependencies in 2012 , 2018, Scientific Data.

[10]  Sedat Alataş,et al.  How production-based and consumption-based emissions accounting systems change climate policy analysis: the case of CO2 convergence , 2018, Environmental Science and Pollution Research.

[11]  Zhi Wang,et al.  Measures of Participation in Global Value Chains and Global Business Cycles , 2017 .

[12]  Zhi Wang,et al.  Characterizing Global Value Chains: Production Length and Upstreamness , 2017 .

[13]  João Amador,et al.  Global Value Chains: A Survey of Drivers and Measures , 2016 .

[14]  G. Peters,et al.  Tracing CO2 Emissions in Global Value Chains , 2014, Energy Economics.

[15]  A. Hoekstra,et al.  Humanity’s unsustainable environmental footprint , 2014, Science.

[16]  Zhi Wang,et al.  Quantifying International Production Sharing at the Bilateral and Sector Levels , 2013 .

[17]  Bart Los,et al.  Fragmentation, Incomes and Jobs: An Analysis of European Competitiveness , 2013, SSRN Electronic Journal.

[18]  Arnold Tukker,et al.  GLOBAL MULTIREGIONAL INPUT–OUTPUT FRAMEWORKS: AN INTRODUCTION AND OUTLOOK , 2013 .

[19]  Zhi Wang,et al.  Tracing Value-Added and Double Counting in Gross Exports , 2012 .

[20]  W. Landman Climate change 2007: the physical science basis , 2010 .

[21]  S. Davis,et al.  Consumption-based accounting of CO2 emissions , 2010, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[22]  E. Hertwich,et al.  CO2 embodied in international trade with implications for global climate policy. , 2008, Environmental science & technology.

[23]  M. Lenzen,et al.  Shared producer and consumer responsibility — Theory and practice , 2007 .

[24]  W. Leontief Quantitative Input and Output Relations in the Economic Systems of the United States , 1936 .

[25]  Huizheng Liu,et al.  Can China reduce the carbon emissions of its manufacturing exports by moving up the global value chain? , 2020 .

[26]  Xin Li Recent patterns of global production and GVC participation , 2019, Global Value Chain Development Report 2019.

[27]  Yuqing Xing,et al.  How the iPhone Widens the US Trade Deficit with the PRC ? , 2012 .

[28]  J. Bollen,et al.  Trade and Climate Change , 2021, Transitioning to a Prosperous, Resilient and Carbon-Free Economy.

[29]  Gary Gereffi,et al.  GLOBAL VALUE CHAIN ANALYSIS: A PRIMER , 2011 .

[30]  Thibault Fally,et al.  On the fragmentation of production in the us , 2011 .

[31]  Thomas Dietz,et al.  Rethinking the Environmental Impacts of Population , Affluence and Technology ’ , 2003 .