International Journal of Sustainable Development &

World Ecology

ISSN: 1350-4509 (Print) 1745-2627 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tsdw20

Technological innovation for sustainable

development: an analysis of different types of
impacts for countries in the BRICS and G7 groups

Naja Brandão Santana, Daisy Aparecida Do Nascimento Rebelatto, Ana Elisa

Périco, Herick Fernando Moralles & Walter Leal Filho

To cite this article: Naja Brandão Santana, Daisy Aparecida Do Nascimento Rebelatto, Ana
Elisa Périco, Herick Fernando Moralles & Walter Leal Filho (2015) Technological innovation for
sustainable development: an analysis of different types of impacts for countries in the BRICS and
G7 groups, International Journal of Sustainable Development & World Ecology, 22:5, 425-436, DOI:
10.1080/13504509.2015.1069766

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/13504509.2015.1069766

Published online: 26 Aug 2015.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 351

View Crossmark data

Citing articles: 2 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=tsdw20
International Journal of Sustainable Development & World Ecology, 2015
Vol. 22, No. 5, 425–436, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13504509.2015.1069766

Technological innovation for sustainable development: an analysis of different types of impacts

for countries in the BRICS and G7 groups
Naja Brandão Santanaa, Daisy Aparecida Do Nascimento Rebelattoa, Ana Elisa Péricob, Herick Fernando Morallesc
and Walter Leal Filhod*
a
Production Engineering Department, University of São Paulo, Trabalhador São-Carlense, 400, São Carlos SP 13566-590, Brazil;
b
Economics Department, State University of São Paulo, Rodovia Araraquara-Jaú, Machados, Araraquara SP 14800-901, Brazil;
c
Production Engineering Department, Federal University of São Carlos, Rodovia Washington Luís, Km 235-SP310, Jardim Guanabara,
São Carlos SP 13565-905, Brazil; dSchool of Science and the Environment, Manchester Metropolitan University, Manchester, UK

(Received 20 May 2015; final version received 29 June 2015)

Technological innovation is considered as being one of the major driving forces in fostering economic growth. However, in
the current economic situation, where matters related to environmental protection and conservation play a key role,
technological innovation can also be used as a driver of new production alternatives to reduce the harmful impacts of
industrial development on society and nature. Within this context, this paper aims to analyze, through econometric tools, the
relationship between investments in technological innovation and the sustainable development of G7 and BRICS countries.
The results demonstrate that for the BRICS group, technological innovation has been significant for the three pillars of
sustainable development. However, for the G7 group, technological innovation was considered significant only for social
development, showing no statistical significance for economic and environmental development. The results indicate that
technological innovation can cause different types of impacts, depending on the development stage of the analyzed country
or region.
Keywords: BRICS; economic growth; G7; sustainable development; technological innovation

1. Introduction to answer this question, two distinct hypotheses were

The economic growth of many countries is often accom- formulated as part of this research:
panied by the excessive use of natural resources, and the
negative environmental and social impacts that derive (1) Technological innovations partially promote sus-
from it. This paper defends the view that economic tainable development;
growth, albeit very important, should not be regarded as (2) Technological innovations promote sustainable
the prime parameter for development, and that environ- development in its three dimensions: economic,
mental considerations should be part of the equation. social and environmental.
For some time, technological innovation has been
viewed as a guaranteed means to achieve economic
On the first hypothesis, sustainability is considered in a
growth. However, in the current context of high economic
more classic and conservative manner. This hypothesis
growth with little regard to environmental issues, techno-
argues that technological development is an important
logical innovation should not be used only as a means to
input for industrial and economic growth. However, it
further accelerate production and spur economic growth.
can also result in social and environmental degradation.
Primarily, technological innovation should be a driver of
Such a view indicates that technological innovation
new production alternatives, especially those which have a
only partially promotes sustainable development, since it
lesser impact on nature and which allows countries to
only addresses one of the pillars of sustainability: econom-
continue producing without posing a threat to the planet.
ics. Authors such as Meadows et al. (1972) and Freeman
and Soete (1997) corroborate this view, and have argued
that technological innovation can bring social and envir-
1.1. Research question and hypotheses onmental degradation, even though these authors consider
There is an important research question that directly technological innovation as a major driver of industrial
relates to the scope of this investigation, formulated as development.
follows: Can technological innovation bring sustainable Regarding the second hypothesis, it became more
development to a nation, in its three dimensions? heavily defended from the 1970s, especially due to the
As a result of the extensive analysis of the literature increased attention paid to issues related to sustainability
performed in the preparation of this paper, in order to try (Sachs 2004). Environmental issues have become part of

*Corresponding author. Email: [email protected]

© 2015 Taylor & Francis

426 N. Brandão Santana et al.

the development agenda of countries and sustainability has the achievement of sustainable development. Nonetheless,
become a normative regulation for contemporary society, the integration of economic, environmental and social
which includes an ethical relationship of current genera- dimensions is also frequently associated with conflicts
tions to future generations (Scholz 2011). between these aspects that tend to hinder the achievement
To Franceschini and Pansera (2015), the discourse on of sustainable development (Hansmann et al. 2012).
sustainable development has invigorated the idea that
technological innovations are inevitable to sustain eco-
nomic development, while simultaneously ensuring envir- 1.2. Objectives of the investigation
onmental sustainability. Thus, awareness of environmental Based on the background here provided, the overall goal
problems has been emerging (one example can be taken of this paper is to analyze the relationships between invest-
from the area of cleaner technologies), which Paredis ments in technological innovation and the sustainable
(2011) considers as a way to simultaneously solve envir- development models of BRICS and G7 countries.
onmental and development problems. The study was conducted via an econometric analysis
In addition, an understanding that technological devel- of two groups of countries. The first group, the BRICS,
opment should be aligned to social development has was composed of Brazil, Russia, India, China and South
guided research in the area, addressing some thematic Africa, and the second group, the G7 group, was com-
gaps. More than the promotion of social development, posed of France, Italy, Germany, the United Kingdom,
technological development should lead to structural Japan, the United States of America and Canada.
changes as well. Sabadie (2014) argues that sustainable The relevance and innovative nature of this study are
technological solutions should also catalyze social and based on the current gap related to empirical research and
behavioral changes. For the author, the human capital comparative studies that analyze the relationship between
and new social behaviors are critical and must be com- technological innovation and sustainable development of
bined with economic competitiveness and sustainability, as countries. In general, what is put into question is the
technology alone is no longer able to solve global perhaps mistaken assertion, that technological innovation
challenges. per se can support economic growth without limits.
To Sabadie (2014), sustainability and innovation are The timely nature of this study can be ascertained if
among the key elements of the European Union’s one considers the projections by O’Neill (2001), who in
Research and Innovation Framework Programme. In this 2001 and 2002 predicted that the real GDP growth of the
context, the European Institute of Innovation and BRIC countries would be higher than the G7 countries.
Technology (2012) argues that radical technological This author also stated that in each of the four scenarios he
changes can only occur if the social context is also chan- projected, the GDP increase of the BRICs would be led by
ging. The individual must be prepared for an environment China, although India, Russia and Brazil would also con-
(economic, social and environmental) that is sustainable. tribute significantly to the overall growth.
The study by the European Institute of Innovation and According to Yang et al. (2012), the countries that are
Technology states that in the European Union, increased members of the G7 group have a high scientific and tech-
competitiveness and industrial production, resulting from nological development level and the countries of the BRIC
technological development, should also generate sustain- group, which had a lower economic level, have achieved an
able jobs. This, in turn, is important in order to establish a astonishing development speed in the last 10 years, espe-
solid basis for a smart growth (European Comission cially in science and technology. Thus, G7 and BRICS
2013). Consistent with this view, Kinnear and Ogden countries can be used to study two types of countries with
(2014) state that efforts should be made to include innova- different development levels in science and technology.
tion in the programming of regional policies, in order to
diversify the economy, and to unleash opportunities to do
better in the socio-cultural and environmental spheres. 2. Economic growth and sustainable development:
In this sense, technological innovation can be consid- understanding the connections
ered as a key factor for sustainable development, assuming Authors such as Moraes and Barone (2001) have pointed
a catalytic role in the economic, social and environmental to the possibility that the era of economic theory, which
fields (Fokkema et al. 2005; Constantinescu & Frone significantly contributed to the quantitative growth, is end-
2014). ing, mainly due to the fact of not satisfactorily meeting the
Considering this context, according to the Brundtland simultaneity of economic, social and environmental objec-
Report, elaborated by the World Commission on tives. The authors have claimed that the economic theory,
Environment and Development (1987), technology can especially from neoclassical studies, overstresses eco-
increase productivity and the quality of life, improve nomic growth, disregarding the fact that natural resources
health and conservation of the resource base, but can are finite. However, considering that these resources are
also bring new risks, since they are not all inherently finite, and that growth could be limited by this factor,
benign. another way to measure progress was needed.
In fact, it should be noted that the positive integration In addition to the considerations presented earlier,
of the three pillars of sustainability is needed to facilitate Gadotti (2000) added that the globalized capitalist
 International Journal of Sustainable Development & World Ecology 427

development form, which prioritized economic growth The explanation made along this section leads to a
over human development, determined the concentration questioning of the fact that sustainable development is in
of power and resources, thereby promoting inequalities the opposite direction to economic growth. In this sense,
and devastating the environment. Sachs (2001) emphasized that economic growth, if prop-
Meadows et al. (1972), in the world-famous report erly reconsidered, remains a necessary condition for devel-
entitled The limits to growth, presented the discussion opment given that high rates of economic growth are
about the incompatibility between the current development necessary to accelerate social rehabilitation, and since it
model and environmental protection. According to these is easier to operate with increases in the Gross National
authors, the planet would reach a catastrophic situation if Product than distributing goods and income in a stagnant
developing countries consumed natural resources at the economy.
same level as the developed ones. This demystification of the opposing idea between
Thus, the idea of limits to growth, supported by growth and development allowed Cracolici et al. (2010)
Meadows et al. (1972), came to be viewed with greater to conclude that the GDP per capita increase of a country
interest, since the continued exponential growth of the should be considered as a fundamental prerequisite for
world economy would lead to the structural loss of the improving the quality of life of its population, since it
natural foundations of life, and in less than 100 years, the can provide better-quality healthcare services, greater
limits to growth would be reached, as can be seen from the access to education, safety, leisure and better working
results obtained in more recent studies by Moussiopoulos conditions, in addition to providing a sustainable environ-
et al. (2010). According to him, the anthropogenic pres- ment. Furthermore, the authors added that these factors
sure on the urban environment has reached critical levels related to improved living standards, mentioned above, are
worldwide. the foundations for productivity, and consequently to
Sachs (2004) acknowledged that it was after the 1970s increase the GDP.
that the concern with environmental issues became a In order to address the non-economic dimensions,
determining factor for a new definition of the term devel- Cracolici et al. (2010) concluded that they are significantly
opment. All of this, according to him, is a result of the explained by GDP per capita. However an inverse rela-
United Nations Conference on the Human Environment tionship, in other words, the explanation of GDP per
held in Stockholm in 1972, where the idea of eco- capita by non-economic dimensions, is not always accu-
development was first proposed. rate. In this sense, Cracolici et al. 2010, p. 350) argued that
Bellen (2006) believed that the term eco-development ‘the positive and significant effect of GDP on all social
had emerged as a new alternative to the classical idea of and environmental dimensions highlights that a good level
development, adding that it meant a significant advance of the economic dimension is a basic condition to achieve
for the notion of interdependence, which involved conso- a good social–environmental performance’.
lidating between development and environment.
It should be emphasized that the term sustainable
development was initially discussed by the World 3. Technological innovation and economic growth
Conservation Union in the document entitled The World In relation to business growth, Schumpeter (1937/1989)
Conservation Strategy, which states that ‘for development noted that within economic systems, there is a strong
to be sustainable it must take into account aspects relating dynamic and changes often take place. Within this percep-
to social and ecological dimensions, as well as economic tion, Fagerberg (2002) found that Schumpeter’s objective
factors, the living and non-living resources and the advan- was to develop a theory about economic evolution com-
tages of alternative actions in the short and long term’ plementing the theory of static equilibrium, with no inten-
(Bellen 2006, p. 23). tion of replacing it.
Thus, the definition of the term sustainable develop- Also according to Schumpeter (1939), the term
ment has been presented in the Brundtland Report of Economic Evolution referred to changes in the economic
World Commission on Environment and Development process brought about by innovation, together with all its
(1987), as being the development modality that seeks to effects and impacts. In this regard, Fagerberg (2002) iden-
meet the needs of current generations without compromis- tified that the dynamic view attributed to the works of Karl
ing the ability of future generations to meet their own Marx exerted a significant influence on Schumpeter’s
needs. ideas, since Marx adopted the view that capitalist firms,
In this scenario, in a study by Cracolici et al. (2010), it in order to remain competitive, would need to increase
was suggested that quantifying the performance of a productivity through the continuous introduction of new
nation could not be restricted to only economic aspects machines.
or to any non-economic aspect, not by articulating them. Schumpeter (1943) emphasized that the most impor-
More than that, these aspects should be taken into con- tant modality of competitiveness is the one driven by new
sideration simultaneously and consistently. Sachs (2004) goods, new technology, new resources and a new type of
pointed out that only the activities that took into account organization. Thus, according to Fagerberg (2002),
social and environmental sustainability and economic via- Schumpeter can be considered as being among the ones
bility deserve being designated as development. responsible for the broader notion of innovation.
428 N. Brandão Santana et al.

Within this perspective, Fagerberg (2002) found that The study conducted by Fagerberg (1987) helped
Nelson and Winter (1982) continued advocating prove the hypothesis of a positive relationship between
Schumpeter’s idea by considering capitalism as an engine the level of economic growth and the level of technologi-
of change, although sharing the view that the neo- cal development of a country, since it confirmed the exis-
Schumpeterian term was the most appropriate name for tence of a close correlation between economic
the evolutionary approach. development, represented by GDP per capita, and the
Recognizing that these authors had something in com- level of technological development, measured by R&D
mon with Schumpeter, Fagerberg (2002) noted they sug- data and patents in a group of 25 countries. Moreover,
gested that firms reinvest their profits in new technologies the author concluded that, for those countries studied, the
and in more productive equipment, thus bringing along the differences between their growth rates could be largely
rewards of high profits and growth, as opposed to the explained by differences in the types of technological
companies that did not put this into practice. models adopted.
Thus, Ruffoni et al. (2004) stated that although the In a study by Ruffoni et al. (2004), it was observed
relationship between technological progress and economic that high R&D expenditures led a country to achieve and
growth has not always been included in the theoretical maintain high income levels. However, those that had
models of economic growth, it can be argued that this is lower technology investments were the ones that demon-
a positive relationship. According to these authors, the strated greater potential to transform this kind of invest-
pioneering studies on economic growth only took into ment into economic growth. Thus, a perception emerged
account the two main categories: capital and labor, as that there would be a limit where this type of investment
determining variables. However, they pointed out that could increase the economic growth potential.
these variables alone cannot explain economic growth. Considering what has been presented in this section, it
Fagerberg and Srholec (2008) pointed out that the is reasonable to add that, according to the OECD (2005),
work that gained prominence for having regarded techno- technological development and innovation are key factors
logical progress in the economic theory was that of Solow, for increased productivity and also for employment and
in 1956. However, the model developed by Solow had the economic growth. Thus, in order to understand the influ-
characteristic of adding in the production function the ence of technological innovation on sustainable develop-
technical progress factor only, as a residual variable, but ment, the next section presents the theoretical background
which better explained GDP variations. on the subject.
According to Fagerberg and Srholec (2008), econo-
mists such as Lucas (1988) and Romer (1986) began to
develop growth models with a focus on technology as the 4. Technological innovation and sustainable
driving force of growth and development; technological development
innovation began to be considered as an essential variable, Based on the information obtained in the literature review
initiating the ‘new era of growth’. This initiative comple- presented in the previous section, it can be stated that
mented the neoclassical models and their basic postulates, technological innovation has been a key factor in promot-
and helped defend the thesis of the need for strict protec- ing economic growth (OECD 2005).
tion of intellectual property rights. Scholars who sought to The idea that was the guiding notion of this research was
relate the technological innovations with economic based on another dimension that goes beyond growth.
growth, such as Romer (1986), argued that knowledge, Although economic aspects have been described in depth
whether in the form of technology or human capital, was and have so far prevailed, the social and environmental aspects
an important source of growth. promoted by technological innovation were also considered.
The role played by technological innovation acquired Freeman and Soete’s (1997) study on the potential
greater visibility by using data on technological activities harms and benefits of technological innovation has
(R&D and patent statistics), based on the Schumpeterian shown that while technological innovation is recognized
notion of innovation as a driving force for economic as a driver for industrial development, it is also seen as a
change. All of this caused technological innovation to be factor of social and environmental degradation.
considered as a main factor of international trade and With regard to the business aspect, Hall and
economic performance (Fagerberg 2002). Vredenburg (2003) stated that on the one hand technolo-
In the field of international competitiveness, Fagerberg gical innovations can be considered as providing compe-
and Verspagen (2003) based their investigations on var- titive advantages. However, they can also, on the other
ious previous studies (e.g. Nelson & Phelps 1966; hand, be considered as a source of risk, competitive degra-
Fagerberg 1987; Barro & Sala-i-Martins 1995) to consider dation and business failure.
that innovation and technology diffusion were the driving Meadows et al. (1972) also warned about the dangers
forces in what was regarded as the different growth rates of technology on the environment, bearing in mind that a
of countries. The authors concluded that this fact led to the given technology developed and implemented to increase
hypothesis that many countries and regions would reduce the welfare of society can also have undesirable effects.
their international competitiveness, if they did not consider Authors such as Viotti and Macedo (2001) recognized
the appropriate technological development. that science, technology and innovation comprised the
 International Journal of Sustainable Development & World Ecology 429

fundamental tripod for development and competitiveness innovation is market-oriented, while technological innova-
between companies and countries, and furthermore, it had tion directed toward sustainable development requires
a direct participation in achieving the quality of life for the using social and environmental pressures, assimilating
population, in addition to the possibility of contributing to them while considering future generations and their survi-
solving social and environmental problems. Accordingly, val, with the overall quality of life. Thus, according to
Constantinescu and Frone (2014) showed that technologi- Freeman (1996), social and environmental pressures have
cal innovation is crucial to advance sustainable develop- made innovation for sustainability more complex than
ment, through its effects on the three pillars of exclusively market-oriented innovations.
sustainability, and with decisive influence on the efforts The ideas developed by Hall and Vredenburg (2003),
to promote economic vitality, environmental sustainability illustrated in Figure 1, point out that technological innova-
and social progress. tion can be seen as an opportunity to create new sustain-
With a more focused view on the social and environ- able competitive advantages (quadrants 1 and 3), as well
mental dimensions of economic growth, Fokkema et al. as can be a source of competitive disruption, business
(2005) stated that technology was a key factor for sustain- failure and social and environmental disorders (quadrants
able development. According to the authors, based upon 2 and 4). Additionally, technological innovation can also
the need to ensure a qualitative leap in environmental undergo market influences (quadrants 1 and 2) and public
efficiency and the production of goods and services, tech- policy influences (quadrants 3 and 4).
nological changes should be at the center of concerns to This schema was used by Hall and Vredenburg (2003)
ensure sustainable development. to confirm that companies traditionally focus on quadrants
The development of new technology is considered in 1 and 2, whereas policymakers tend to focus on quadrants
studies such as Paredis (2011), Sabadie (2014), Kinnear 3 and 4. However, the technological innovation that sus-
and Ogden (2014) and Franceschini and Pansera (2015), tainable development strives for should consider the four
as one of the ways to address social, environmental and quadrants, and in doing so a competitive advantage can be
development problems. It is important to quote, in this achieved.
context, Barbieri’s (2004) statement concerning the fact Interestingly, the idea of sustainable technological
that advances in science and technology bring along the innovation has not yet been fully explored, and this results
possibility of products and processes that entail the effi- in elaborating new hypotheses and alternatives, without
cient use of resources, as well as may reduce the emission taking into account its intrinsic dimensions. In the synth-
of pollutants. esis presented by Nobelius (2004), it is noted that the
This is consistent with the views expressed by Hall perspective of sustainable development is not included in
and Vredenburg (2003), who stated that technological their analysis, given that its concepts and principles are not
innovation – when directed to sustainable development – addressed. Thus, according to the author, leaving out the
is incompatible with the conventional idea of innovation. environmental and social variables in alternative technol-
They defend the view that conventional technological ogies may pose a limiting factor to the proposed models.

MARKET-DRIVEN PUBLIC POLICY-DRIVEN

INNOVATION STIMULI INNOVATION STIMULI

1 3
EXPLOITING EXPLOITING
OPPORTUNITY CUSTOMER NEEDS SOCIETAL NEEEDS
FOR for example, new or for example, wealth
COMPETITIVE improved products and creation, energy security,
ADVANTAGE services national and regional
economic development or
environmental protection

2 4
RISK OF FAILURE RISK OF
SOURCE OF
AND OBSOLESCENCE SOCIETAL TURMOIL
COMPETITIVE
DISRUPTION for example, for example,
uncompetitive environmental
technology or business degradation or social
practices inequalities

Figure 1. The ‘two-sided situation’ of innovation.

Source: Hall and Vredenburg (2003).
430 N. Brandão Santana et al.

According to Kemp and Soete (1990), there are some sustainable development within the BRIC and G7 groups
obstacles to the supply and demand of this type of technol- of countries, the selected variables sought to portray these
ogy, some of which regard the uncertainty about demand, issues, in order to allow the set-up and subsequent analysis
automated markets and the exclusion of environmental of the model.
issues, when the question at hand is about maximizing To define the theoretical model adopted in this study,
profits. Thus, the authors believe that disseminating envir- one of the first steps regarded the use of a modified Cobb–
onmental technology has been demanding more support Douglas production function by including the variable
from decision makers, than the traditional production tech- technological innovation as shown in Equation (1),
nologies. In India, there are examples that support this (e.g.
Puyravaud & Davidar 2014). q ¼ AK α Lβ IT γ (1)
The transition to sustainability, according to Martens
and Rotmans (2005), requires a due emphasis to the com-
where q is the product, K is capital, L is labor and IT is the
plexity of social processes. According to Fokkema et al.
variable representing technological innovation.
(2005), the process of sustainable technological innovation
Table 1 lists the selected variables.
involves all stakeholders of a company, from the begin-
Regarding the independent variables, the variable
ning of the technological design process, starting with the
‘gross fixed capital formation’ was chosen to represent
formulation of the problem to be solved.
the variable capital, of the original Cobb–Douglas pro-
In summary, it is perceived that technological innova-
duction function; the selection of the variable ‘employed
tions, assumed within the scope of firms and directly
population’ represents labor, also from the original
related and committed to sustainable development, should
Cobb–Douglas production function; finally, the choice
take into account other previously absent dimensions in its
of the third independent variable, ‘expenditure on
planning. This deliberate action should especially consider
R&D’, represents the technological innovation of coun-
the roles played by both the market forces and the public
tries, and it was chosen because it is considered in the
policy forces, which take into account the social and
Oslo Manual as an indicator of technological innovation
environmental dimension and can ensure that sustainabil-
([OECD] Organization for Economic Co-operation and
ity accompanies technological innovation in its current
Development 2005).
stages of development.
In the set of dependent variables, the selection of the
variable ‘GDP’ was to indicate the economic development
5. Methods used in the study of the countries, and it justified this variable as it is in
studies evaluating the sustainability of regions, such as in
In this study, the emerging countries that constitute the
Shi et al. (2004) and Zhen et al. (2009).
BRICS group and the developed ones (which constitute
The second dependent variable chosen to translate the
the G7 group) were selected in order to analyze the rela-
environmental development of the countries was the indi-
tionship between technological innovation investment and
cator ‘carbon dioxide emissions (CO2)’. This indicator has
economic, environmental and social development. Hence,
been widely used in studies evaluating the environmental
the analyzed units were Brazil, Russia, India, China, South
sustainability of regions, as for instance in Lee and Huang
Africa (BRICS), as well as Canada, France, Germany,
(2007), Tamazian et al. (2009), Zhen et al. (2009), Boggia
Italy, Japan, the United Kingdom and the United States
and Cortina (2010) and Pao and Tsai (2010), among
of America (G7). The choice for studying these countries
others. Furthermore, the use of ‘CO2 emissions’ as a vari-
is justified by the possibility of comparing the major
able of environmental development is justified by the
economic powers, against the group of emerging
Environmental Kuznets Curve, elaborated by Grossman
countries.
and Krueger (1991), to show the relationship between
This research included the use of an unbalanced panel.
pollution emissions and GDP per capita of the countries.
The data collection and analysis for the BRICS countries
Thus, as CO2 is the main gas responsible for the intensi-
contemplated the beginning of 2000 to 2007. As for the
fication of the greenhouse effect, the emission of this
countries of the G7 group the period was more extensive,
pollutant was adopted as an example to develop the
covering data from 1996 to 2008.
work described herein.
Initially, a modified F test for structural stability (the
Finally, the selection of the third dependent variable,
Chow test) was performed, to observe whether the two
which represents social development, was ‘life expectancy
groups of countries have similarities and differences. Since
at birth’. This variable was chosen because it has been used
both groups of countries cannot be classified as similar,
the econometric analysis has been performed separately,
Table 1. Variables selected.
with the regressions for each group being considered.
Independent Dependent

5.1. Identifying the variables Gross fixed capital formation GDP

Employed population CO2 emissions
As the overall goal of this study included composing a Expenditures on R&D Life expectancy
relationship between technological innovation and
 International Journal of Sustainable Development & World Ecology 431

in works such as Mahlberg and Obersteiner (2001), Despotis ln ECOit ¼ ln α0 þ α1 ln Kit þ α2 ln Lit þ α3 ln ITit
(2005), Gisbertt and Pallejá (2006), Ramathan (2006), Lee þ εit (5)
and Huang (2007), Zhen et al. (2009) and also in the work of
Sen (1998), which showed life expectancy as a decisive
indicator to verify the full success of a society. ln AMBit ¼ ln β0 þ β1 ln Kit þ β2 ln Lit þ β3 ln ITit
þ εit (6)
5.2. Collecting and organizing data
The data of the variables were collected in the databases ln SOCit ¼ ln γ0 þ γ1 ln Kit þ γ2 ln Lit þ γ3 ln ITit þ εit (7)
of two major international bodies:

(1) United Nations Educational, Scientific and Another important aspect is regarding the analysis of
Cultural Organization (UNESCO); the error structure. The availability of panel data allows
(2) World Bank. greater flexibility for its specification. In general, the spe-
cification is given by Equation (8).
The data collected were organized in a panel of 12 coun-
tries. The BRICS group was observed in eight periods εit ¼ ηi þμit (8)
(t = 8), from 2000 to 2007, and the G7 group was
observed in 13 periods (t = 13), from 1996 to 2008,
where µit is the assumed error and ηi is the individual
resulting in a total of 131 observations.
unobserved heterogeneity of the production function of
each country.
These unobserved characteristics are constant over
5.3. Definition of the econometric model
time, and for this study they can be factors such as loca-
A three-function econometric model was tested, in which tion, climate, natural resource endowments and a mix of
one refers to economic development, the second to envir- other factors that materialize in productivity differences
onmental development and the last to social development between countries (Woodridge 2002).
of countries, thus portraying the three dimensions of sus- If these unobserved differences or individual effects
tainability as dependent variables. exist, and are not explicitly recognized in the model, then
In the first functions, GDP was used as a dependent the estimated coefficients of the explanatory variables
variable that reflects the economic performance of the included can be biased and inconsistent. Therefore, greater
units – as shown in Equation (2). care was exercised here.
In order to consider the problem of individual hetero-
ECOit ¼ AKitα1 Lαit2 ITitα3 eεit (2) geneity, the fixed effects and random effects models are
mentioned. It should be noted that in the fixed effects
To analyze the influence that technological innovation model, the individual effects can be freely correlated
has on the environmental development of the countries, with the other regressors, while in the random effects
CO2 emission was used as the dependent variable. model, it is assumed that there is no correlation between
Thus, the equation that relates to environmental individual effects and other explanatory variables.
sustainability dimension is given by Equation (3). When the fixed effects approach is used, the individual
effect is considered as a specific constant term of a group,
β β β
AMBit ¼ AKit 1 Lit2 ITit 3 eεit (3) controlling its presence through the use of intercept
dummy variables, so that the model can be estimated by
Finally, to analyze the influence of technological inno- ordinary least squares (OLS) known as the Least Squares
vation on social performance, life expectancy at birth was Dummy Variable Model (LSDV). On the other hand, it is
used as a measure of social performance. The formulation specified in the random-effects approach that the indivi-
is shown by Equation (4): dual effect is a specific concept for each group, similar to
error, thereby inducing an autocorrelation between them,
γ γ γ
SOCit ¼ AKit1 Lit2 ITit3 eεit (4) and the model must be estimated by generalized least
squares (GLS).
It should be noted, however, that the functions pro- The STATA 9.2 software was used to perform these
posed here are not linear, a fact that required the use of analyses, and after determining the econometric model
logarithms for the linearization of the functions, which and its equations, some post-estimation procedures
enables the estimated parameters’ interpretation in terms should be followed, such as autocorrelation and hetero-
of elasticity, and also reducing heteroscedasticity. scedasticity tests in the functions. Then, if non-spherical
Thus, using a log–log model in Equations (2), (3) and disturbances were observed, the three-equation panel-data
(4), shown above, the model of three equations to be linear model will be fitted using feasible generalized least
estimated was elaborated. squares (FGLS).
432 N. Brandão Santana et al.

6. Results – presentation and discussion Table 3. Econometric results.

Before presenting the econometric results, the formulation BRICS G7
of the two hypotheses of Chow’s test for parameter stabi-
lity should be demonstrated. Coefficient P-value Coefficient P-value

Economic equation
(1) H0: Stability (BRICS = G7); Gross fixed capital .6449086 0.000 .5471857 0.000
(2) H1: Instability (BRICS ≠ G7). formation
Employed .0002504 0.837 .3176664 0.183
The purpose of this test was to identify similarities or population
differences between the BRICS and G7 groups. Hence, Expenditure on .0952782 0.000 −.029377 0.864
R&D
with 99% of confidence a critical F of 3.48 was found, so
the null hypothesis of parameter structural stability was Environmental
equation
rejected, as seen in Table 2. Gross fixed capital .0733177 0.399 −.0844879 0.259
Accordingly, with Chow’s test, it was seen that in the formation
three equations mentioned, the BRIC group is different Employed .0006095 0.637 1.325.701 0.000
from the G7 group. Thus, the econometric analyses of population
these two groups of countries were performed separately Expenditure on .600412 0.000 −.105434 0.255
R&D
for the three proposed functions.
After completing Chow’s test for defining the model Social equation
Gross fixed capital .0533732 0.000 .0542992 0.000
and its equations, the Drukker (2003) tests were performed formation
for autocorrelation, and the Breusch–Pagan for Employed .000151 0.408 −.1209447 0.000
heteroscedasticity. population
From the results of the Drukker (2003) tests and the Expenditure on −.016959 0.081 .0338415 0.000
Breusch–Pagan, it was possible to state that all three R&D
functions of the econometric model showed autocorrela-
tion and heteroscedasticity. Thus, the estimation by FGLS
was chosen, allowing the estimation in the presence of AR Thus, with the results presented in Table 3, Table 4
(1) autocorrelation within panels and cross-sectional cor- was constructed, which shows the summary of results of
relation and heteroscedasticity across panels. the variable expenditure on R&D in both groups of the
The first estimation carried out was for the economic countries studied.
equation that considered the GDP as the dependent vari- It can be seen that, for the BRICS group, the variable
able. Second, the environmental equation was estimated, expenditure on R&D was significant for all the proposed
which used CO2 emission as the dependent variable. Note functions. That said, and based on the data in Table 3, the
that the lower the CO2 emission level in a region, the results indicate that:
better it is for its environmental development. Finally,
the social equation was estimated, which used life expec-
tancy as the dependent variable. (1) If the investments in technological innovation of
Table 3 shows the results obtained from the estimation this group of countries increased by 1%, the GDP
with their respective coefficients and p-values for all equa- of the member countries would see an increase of
tions (economic, environmental and social). 0.0953%.
(2) If the investments in technological innovation of
this group of countries increased by 1%, the CO2
emissions of the member countries would see an
6.1. Separate results for investments in technological increase of 0.0006%.
innovation (3) If the investments in technological innovation of
As the objective of this study was to mathematically this group of countries increased by 1%, life
model the variables used in the analysis of the BRICS expectancy of the member countries would see a
and G7 groups, focused on the variable technological decrease of 0.0169%.
innovation, the results regarding the variable expenditure
on R&D are highlighted.
Table 4. Summary of econometric results.

Table 2. Results of Chow’s test. Economic Environmental Social

function function function
F calculated Conclusion
BRICS Significant, Significant, Significant,
Economic equation 7.57 BRICS ≠ G7 positive positive negative
Environmental equation 56.02 BRICS ≠ G7 G7 Not significant Not significant Significant,
Social equation 36.48 BRICS ≠ G7 positive
 International Journal of Sustainable Development & World Ecology 433

It should be noted that the investments in technological consequences are seen with respect to high mortality, food
innovation, made by the countries in the BRICS group, shortages and epidemics due to industrial production,
resulted in a positive change in their economic develop- which are most evident in developing countries, than in
ment. However, for environmental and social develop- the developed countries.
ment, the values of the coefficients showed that Finally, the social development of the G7 countries
increasing the investments in technological innovation has benefited by investments in technological innovation,
would bring an increase in CO2 emission and a decrease represented by a positive correlation between these and
in the population’s life expectancy. the life expectancy of the member countries. It is possible
The increase in investments in technological innova- that, contrary to what was observed for the BRICS group,
tion, associated with the increased levels of CO2, enabled the nature of technological innovation specifically
the assumption that this type of investment, adopted by the adopted by the G7 group has reached a stage that is
BRICS group, does not help them meet their sustainable geared more to the needs of society and only not to
development targets, and are geared to meet the market meet the needs of consumers, as discussed by Hall and
pressures, anticipating the consumer needs, as discussed Vredenburg (2003).
by Hall and Vredenburg (2003). This confirms earlier
results by Santana et al. (2014), who stated that the invest-
ments in technological innovation made by the BRICS 7. Conclusions
may not be focused on sustainable technologies that can The motivation for developing this investigation origi-
reduce levels of CO2 emissions. It is also consistent with nated in questions about outcomes of probable achieve-
the results of Amiolemen et al. (2012), who affirmed that ments of countries that excel in the global economic scene.
most emerging countries do not have the conventional According to O´Neill (2001), the GDP growth of the
technology to combat environmental pollution. Finally, it BRICS countries may exceed the GDP growth of the G7
supports the view from Constantinescu and Frone (2014), countries in some years. But how can one monitor this to
who argued that developing countries still lack the tech- see the aspects that can be improved in the growth and
nology to handle environmental pollution and their economic development of the new emerging actors? Can
consequences. the evolution of science, through new analysis tools,
As for the increase in investments in technological anticipate these growth-related problems?
innovation, associated with the population’s decreased In this context, and considering the importance of
life expectancy, it may be assumed that in the countries technological innovation for the economic growth of
of the BRICS group, the type of technological innovation countries, the work reported herewith analyzed the rela-
adopted, geared to meet the market pressures and produc- tionship between the investments directed to technological
tion growth, is not committed to social welfare and regio- innovation, and the sustainable development prospects of
nal development. the BRICS and G7 groups. The initiative to study this
With regard to the G7 group, it was seen that techno- relationship stemmed from the idea that economic growth
logical innovation was not significant, neither for eco- no longer guarantees a nation’s social welfare and envir-
nomic development nor for environmental development. onmental quality.
However, for social development, the variable technologi- Through the results here gathered, it was found that
cal innovation was significant and positive. the investments made in technological innovation from
With regard to economic development, it is observed the BRICS countries in the analyzed period resulted in
that the investments in technological innovation of the positive changes in their economic growth. In contrast,
G7 group no longer potentialize the goal of economic with regard to environmental and social development, the
growth, meaning that they may have reached the limit, as investments in technological innovation of the BRICS
shown by Ruffoni et al. (2004). From this, the lack of group showed they were directly associated with
significance of the variable technological innovation for increased CO2 emissions and decreased life expectancy.
the economic development of these countries can be This enables the conclusion that investments in techno-
justified. A similar analysis can be made with respect to logical innovation by this group of countries do not seem
the lack of statistical significance of technological inno- to be committed to a qualitative leap in socio-environ-
vation for environmental development. Given that in mental efficiency, but is rather focused on meeting mar-
these circumstances technological innovation no longer ket pressures. Reflecting this state of affairs, Wang and
enhances economic development, it may not entail Ying (2014) stated that the participation of the BRIC
increased production and hence the change in the CO2 countries in the international innovation scenario has
emissions. grown in recent decades, but this participation is still
A factor that should be highlighted in the analysis of quite low.
sustainability in industrialized countries, according to The results obtained from the analysis of the G7 group
Scheel and Vazquez (2011), concerns the fact that they pointed toward a lack of statistical significance, in terms of
have economic growth often at the cost of other countries, technological innovation for economic growth and envir-
which bear the resulting socio-environmental problems. In onmental development. This could be justified, since this
this regard, Amiolemen et al. (2012) showed that serious group of countries is at an advanced development stage,
434 N. Brandão Santana et al.

where possible investments in technological innovation do In this context, one can conclude that the current and
not necessarily have economic growth as a main driving future differences in the real GDP growth of the BRIC
force, which in these circumstances may not result in and G7 countries should be closely monitored, and here
increased production and hence variation in CO2 emis- investments in technological innovation should deserve a
sions. On the other hand, the differentiated nature of special attention. The question that remains is ‘what
technological investments, acquired by the G7 group, is should the BRIC countries do to direct investments in
reflected in the increase in the population’s life technological innovation in order to achieve positive
expectancy. results as of now, not only in respect of economic
Comparing the results achieved, it can be suggested growth, but also in terms of environmental and social
that while the G7 group may have reached the limit of development?’
technological innovation for economic growth, the The study presented here is not intended to exhaust the
BRICS group demonstrates its potential for this transfor- discussion. Additional in-depth analyses should be per-
mation. Moreover, it is possible that, over time, the G7 formed, especially the role of technological innovation as
group has implemented sustainable technologies, while a tool to promote sustainability.
the BRIC group has not yet done so, according to the
data analysis of the variable CO2 emissions. Finally, it is
possible that the type of technological innovation adopted
Disclosure statement
by the G7 group is at the stage of anticipating the needs
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.
of society, striving to create social welfare and regional
development, as suggested by Hall and Vredenburg
(2003), unlike the BRICS group, which seems to be
focused on innovation exclusively on the market, antici- References
pating consumer needs.
Allinson R, Izsak K, Griniece E. 2012. Catalysing innovation in
If on the one hand the G7 group represents the seven the knowledge triangle: practices from the EIT knowledge
most industrialized and economically developed countries and innovation communities [Internet]. Budapest: European
in the world, the BRICS countries represent the five emer- Institute of Innovation and Technology; [cited 2015 Jan 20].
ging countries, with the fastest growth rate tendency in Available from: http:// eit.europa.eu/sites/default/files/EIT_
their economies. Based on the perception about the differ- publication_Final.pdf
Amiolemen SO, Ologeh IO, Ogidan JA. 2012. Climate change
ences in the development stage of each of these groups, it and sustainable development: the appropriate technology
was found that the result of the innovation effort was also concept. J Sust Dev. 5:50–53.
different for each one. Barbieri JC. 2004. Gestão ambiental empresarial: conceitos,
Based on the results of the work presented herein, modelos e instrumentos [Corporate environmental manage-
together with the proposal of Hall and Vredenburg ment: concepts, models and tools]. São Paulo: Saraiva.
Barro RJ, Sala-i-Martins X. 1995. Economic growth. New York
(2003), the G7 group has demonstrated it is situated at (NY): Mc Graw Hill.
the innovation stimulus stage by public policies, anticipat- Bellen HMV. 2006. Indicadores de sustentabilidade: uma análise
ing the needs of society by the creation of social welfare, comparativa [Sustainability indicators: a comparative analy-
environmental quality and regional development. sis]. Rio de Janeiro: Editora FGV.
The BRICS group, however, has shown to be situ- Blohmke J. 2014. Technology complexity, technology transfer
mechanisms and sustainable development. Energy Sust Dev.
ated at the innovation stimulus stage by the market 23:237–246.
forces, anticipating the needs of consumers, the devel- Boggia A, Cortina C. 2010. Measuring sustainable development
opment of new products/services and the definition of using a multi-criteria model: a case study. J Environ Manag.
new markets. 91:2301–2306.
Paredis (2011) stated that all countries have respon- Constantinescu A, Frone S. 2014. The role of technological
innovation in sustainable economic development. J Knowl
sibilities for achieving sustainable development, but that Manag Econ Inf Technol. 4:13.
the industrialized countries should take the lead. To Cracolici MF, Cuffaro M, Nijkamp P. 2010. The measurement of
Blohmke (2014) advances in the technology frontier economic, social and environmental performance of coun-
are often made in developed economies, and the diffu- tries: a novel approach. Soc Indicators Res. 95:339–356.
sion of technology extends slowly to the developing Despotis DK. 2005. A reassessment of the human development
index via data envelopment analysis. J Oper Res Soc.
world. In this sense, Amiolemen et al. (2012) high- 56:969–980.
lighted that the concept of sustainable development in Drukker DM. 2003. Testing for serial correlation in linear panel-
developing countries has received little or no attention data models. Stata J. 3:168–177.
and, in addition, these countries have failed to under- The European Commission. 2013. Annual Growth Survey 2014
stand that sustainability is a synonym of wealth and [Internet]. [cited 2015 Jan 27]. Available from: http://ec.
europa.eu/europe2020/pdf/2014/ags2014_en.pdf
development. For the authors, these countries need to Fagerberg J. 1987. A technology gap approach to why growth
look inward to adopt and develop technologies that are rates differ. Res Policy. 16:87–99 (reprinted as Chapter 1 in
appropriate and necessary for self-sufficiency and sus- Fagerberg J. 2002. Technology, growth and competitiveness:
tainable development. selected Essays, Edward Elgar).
 International Journal of Sustainable Development & World Ecology 435

Fagerberg J. 2002. A Layman’s guide to evolutionary economics. Nelson RR, Phelps E. 1966. Investment in humans, technological
Working Papers 17. Oslo: Centre for Technology, Innovation diffusion and economic growth. Am Econ Rev. 56:69–75.
and Culture, University of Oslo. Nelson RR, Winter SG. 1982. An evolutionary theory of
Fagerberg J, Srholec M. 2008. Technology and development: economic change. Cambridge (MA): Harvard University
unpacking the relationship(s). Paper presented at: IV Press.
Globelics; 2008 Sep 22–24; Mexico City. Atlanta: Georgia Nobelius D. 2004. Towards the sixth generation of R&D man-
Institute of Technology. agement. Int J Project Manag. 22:369–375.
Fagerberg J, Verspagen B. 2003. Innovation, growth and eco- O’Neill J. 2001. Building better global economic BRICs [glo-
nomic development: why some countries succeed and bal economics paper, no. 66]. New York (NY): Goldman
others don’t. Paper presented at: Innovation Systems and Sachs Economic Research Group [Internet]; [cited 2015
development Strategies for the Third Millenium; Rio de Jan 29]. Available from: http://www.con-tent.gs.com/
Janeiro. japan/ideas/brics/building-better-pdf.pdf
Fokkema J, Jansen L, Mulder K. 2005. Sustainability: necessity [OECD] Organization for economic co-operation and develop-
for a prosperous society. Int J Sustain. 6:219–228. ment. 2005. OECD proposed guidelines for collecting and
Franceschini S, Pansera M. 2015. Beyond unsustainable integrating technological innovation data. Oslo Manual. 3rd
eco-innovation: the role of narratives in the evolution of ed. Paris: OECD.
the lighting sector. Technol Forecasting Soc Change. Pao H-T, Tsai C-M. 2010. CO2 emissions, energy consumption
92:69–83. and economic growth in BRIC countries. Energy Policy.
Freeman C. 1996. The greening of technology and models of 38:7850–7860.
innovation. Technol Forecasting Soc Change. 53:27–39. Paredis E. 2011. Sustainability transitions and the nature of
Freeman C, Soete L. 1997. The economics of industrial innova- technology. Found Sci. 16:195–225.
tion. Cambridge (MA): MIT Press. Puyravaud J-P, Davidar P. 2014. An ecological review of the
Gadotti M. 2000. Pedagogia da terra [Pedagogy of the land]. São WGEEP report and environmental management planning in
Paulo: Peirópolis, Série Brasil cidadão. India. Manag Environ Quality Int J. 25:712–722.
Gisbertt FJG, Pallejá RP. 2006. Esperanza de vida en España a lo Ramanathan R. 2006. Evaluating the comparative performance of
largo del siglo XX: las tablas de mortalidad del Instituto countries of the Middle East and North Africa: a DEA
Nacional de Estadística [Life expectancy in Spain throughout application. Socio Econ Plann Sci. 40:156–167.
the twentieth century: the mortality tables of the National Romer PM. 1986. Increasing returns and long-run growth. J
Institute of Statistics]. Documentos de trabajo. Madrid: Political Econ. 94:1002–1037.
Fundación BBVA. Ruffoni J, Zawislak PA, Lacerda JS. 2004. Uma análise compar-
Grossman GM, Krueger AB. 1991. Environmental impacts of a ativa entre indicadores de desenvolvimento tecnológico e de
North American free trade agreement. Discussion Papers in crescimento econômico para grupo de países [A comparative
Economics, n. 3914. Cambridge (MA): National Bureau of analysis of indicators of technological development and eco-
Economics Research. nomic growth for group of countries]. Paper presented at:
Hall J, Vredenburg H. 2003. The challenges of innovating for XXIII Simpósio de Gestão da Inovação Tecnológica; 19 a 22
sustainable development. MIT Sloan Manag Rev. 44:61–68. de outubro de 2004; Curitiba.
Hansmann R, Mieg HA, Frischknecht P. 2012. Principal sustain- Sabadie JA. 2014. Technological innovation, human capital and
ability components: empirical analysis of synergies between social change for sustainability. Lessons learnt from the
the three pillars of sustainability. Int J Sust Dev World Ecol. industrial technologies theme of the EU’s research frame-
19:451–459. work programme. Sci Total Environ. 481:668–673.
Kemp R, Soete L. 1990. Inside the ‘green box’: on the economics Sachs I. 2001. Repensando o crescimento econômico e o pro-
of technological change and the environment. In: Freeman C, gresso social: o âmbito da política [Rethinking economic
Soete L, editors. New explorations in the economics of growth and social progress: the scope of the policy]. In:
technological change. London: Pinter Publishers; p. Arbix G, Zilbovicius M, Abramovay R, (Orgs.) editors.
245–257. Razões e ficções do desenvolvimento [Reasons and fictions
Kinnear S, Ogden I. 2014. Planning the innovation agenda for of development]. São Paulo: Editora Unesp/Edusp.
sustainable development in resource regions: a central Sachs I. 2004. Desenvolvimento Includente, Sustentável,
Queensland case study. Res Policy. 39:42–53. Sustentado [Development inclusive, sustainable, sustain-
Lee YJ, Huang CM. 2007. Sustainability index for Taipei. able]. Rio de Janeiro: Garamond/Sebrae.
Environ Impact Assess Rev. 27:505–521. Santana NB, Rebelatto DAN, Périco AE, Mariano EB. 2014.
Lucas RE. 1988. On the mechanics of economic development. J Sustainable development in the BRICS countries: an effi-
Monetary Econ. 22: 3–42. ciency analysis by data envelopment. Int J Sust Dev World
Mahlberg B, Obersteiner M. 2001. Remeasuring the HDI by data Ecol. 21:259–272.
envelopment analysis [Interim Report IR-01-069]. Scheel C, Vazquez M. 2011. The role of innovation and technol-
Laxenburg: International Institute for Applied Systems ogy in industrial ecology systems for the sustainable devel-
Analysis (IIASA). opment of emerging regions. J Sust D. 4:197–210.
Martens P, Rotmans J. 2005. Transitions in a globalising world. Scholz RW. 2011. Environmental literacy in science and society:
Futures. 37:1133–1144. from knowledge to decisions. Cambridge: Cambridge
Meadows DH, Meadows DI, Randers J, Behrens III WW. 1972. University Press.
The limits to growth. New York (NY): Universe Books. Schumpeter J. 1937/1989. Preface to the Japanese edition of
Moraes AC, Barone R. 2001. O desenvolvimento sustentável e “theorie der wirtschaftlichen entwicklung”. In: Clemence
as novas articulações econômica, ambiental e social RV, editor. Essays on entrepreneurs, innovations, business
[Sustainable development and new economic, environmen- cycles and the evolution of capitalism. New Brunswick
tal and social joints]. Pesquisa E Debate. 12:119–140. (NJ): Transaction Publishers; p. 165–168.
Moussiopoulos N, Achillas C, Vlachokostas C, Spyridi D, Schumpeter J. 1939. Business cycles: a theoretical, historical, and
Nikolaou K. 2010. Environmental, social and economic statistical analysis of the capitalist process. New York (NY):
information management for the evaluation of sustainability McGraw-Hill.
in urban areas: a system of indicators for Thessaloniki, Schumpeter J. 1943. Capitalism, socialism and democracy. New
Greece. Cities. 27:377–384. York (NY): Harper.
436 N. Brandão Santana et al.

Sen A. 1998. Mortality as an indicator of economic success and USPTO patents during 1990–2009. Scientometrics.
failure. Econ J. 108:1–25. 98:1065–1083.
Shi C, Hutchinson SM, Xu S. 2004. Evaluation of coastal zone Woodridge JM. 2002. Econometric analysis of cross-section and
sustainability: an integrated approach applied in Shanghai panel data. Cambridge (MA): MIT Press.
Municipality and Chong Ming Island. J Environ Manage. World Commission on Environment and Development. 1987.
71:335–344. Our common future (Brundtland report). Oxford: Oxford
Tamazian A, Chousa JP, Vadlamannati KC. 2009. Does higher University Press.
economic and financial development lead to environmental Yang LY, Yue T, Ding JL, Han T. 2012. A comparison of
degradation: evidence from BRIC countries. Energy Policy. disciplinary structure in science between the G7 and the
37:246–253. BRIC countries by bibliometric methods. Scientometrics.
Viotti EB, Macedo MM. 2001. Indicadores de ciência, tecnologia 93:497–516.
e inovação no Brasil [Indicators of science, technology and Zhen L, Cao S, Wei Y, Dilly O, Liu X, Li F, Koenig H,
innovation in Brazil]. Campinas: Editora Unicamp. Tscherning K, Helming K. 2009. Comparison of sustainabil-
Wang Y, Li-Ying J. 2014. How do the BRIC countries play ity issues in two sensitive areas of China. Environ Sci Policy.
their roles in the global innovation arena? a study based on 12:1153–1167.