Environ-economic balance analysis in bilateral industrial trade: a comparison between Australia and China

    Qun Gao Affiliation
    ; Bin Liu Affiliation
    ; Junjie Li Affiliation
    ; Chunlu Liu Affiliation
    ; Youquan Xu Affiliation


Exchanges of products and services in bilateral industries may be accompanied by environmental and economic inequalities which lead to imbalanced situations in relation to environmental protection and economic development. In a close trade relationship between two countries such as Australia and China, their industries inevitably affect each other. This study maps the embodied CO2 emissions and value added in bilateral trade under the input–output model and measures the unequal exchanges in such trade using an originally established industrial environ-economic balance index. The bilateral trade between Australia and China is taken as an example to validate the outcomes of the research method. The results indicate that in 2014, Australia transferred 580.90 billion tons of CO2 and 105.85 billion USD of value added to China, while approximately 375.65 billion tons of CO2 and 25.15 billion USD of value added flowed from China to Australia. China’s manufacturing, construction, and services and other industries, and China’s and Australia’s real estate activities industries had net inflows of embodied CO2 emissions and value added, indicating these industries paid economic costs in return for reducing environmental pressure. In inter-industrial trade between Australia and China, 49 pairs of bilateral industrial trades were relatively fairly balanced, while the remaining 15 pairs of inter-industrial trades were imbalanced. The established environ-economic balance analysis method and quantitative findings are valuable for better understanding the environment impacts of the economic development of national economies and developing national policies in corresponding to the rising environmental issues.

Keyword : bilateral industrial trade, economic development, industrial environ-economic balance index, input–output model

How to Cite
Gao, Q., Liu, B., Li, J., Liu, C., & Xu, Y. (2022). Environ-economic balance analysis in bilateral industrial trade: a comparison between Australia and China. Technological and Economic Development of Economy, 28(3), 676–693.
Published in Issue
Apr 21, 2022
Abstract Views
PDF Downloads
Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.


Alcántara, V., del Río, P., & Hernández, F. (2010). Structural analysis of electricity consumption by productive sectors. The Spanish case. Energy, 35(5), 2088–2098.

Ali, Y. (2015). Measuring CO2 emission linkages with the hypothetical extraction method (HEM). Ecological Indicators, 54, 171–183.

Arce, G., López, L. A., & Guan, D. (2016). Carbon emissions embodied in international trade: The post-China era. Applied Energy, 184, 1063–1072.

Dietzenbacher, E., & Los, B. (1998). Structural decomposition techniques: Sense and sensitivity. Economic Systems Research, 10(4), 307–323.

Du, H., Chen, Z., Peng, B., Southworth, F., Ma, S., & Wang, Y. (2019). What drives CO2 emissions from the transport sector? A linkage analysis. Energy, 175, 195–204.

Gao, Q., Liu, B., Sun, J., Liu, C., & Xu, Y. (2022). Trade decomposition of CO2 emissions of global construction industries. Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, 29(1), 502–522.

Jayanthakumaran, K., & Liu, Y. (2016). Bi-lateral CO2 emissions embodied in Australia–China trade. Energy Policy, 92, 205–213.

Lapinskienė, G., Tvaronavičienė, M., & Vaitkus, P. (2014). Greenhouse gases emissions and economic growth – evidence substantiating the presence of environmental Kuznets curve in the EU. Technological and Economic Development of Economy, 20(1), 65–78.

Liobikienė, G., Mandravickaitė, J., Krepštulienė, D., Bernatonienė, J., & Savickas, A. (2017). Lithuanian achievements in terms of CO2 emissions based on production side in the context of the EU-27. Technological and Economic Development of Economy, 23(3), 483–503.

Nansai, K., Tohno, S., Chatani, S., Kanemoto, K., Kurogi, M., Fujii, Y., Kagawa, S., Kondo,Y., Nagashima, F., Takayanagi, W., & Lenzen, M. (2020). Affluent countries inflict inequitable mortality and economic loss on Asia via PM2.5 emissions. Environment International, 134, 105238.

Perobelli, F. S., Faria, W. R., & Vale, V. d. A. (2015). The increase in Brazilian household income and its impact on CO2 emissions: Evidence for 2003 and 2009 from input–output tables. Energy Economics, 52(A), 228–239.

Peters, G. P., & Hertwich, E. G. (2008). CO2 embodied in international trade with implications for global climate policy. Environmental Science and Technology, 42(5), 1401–1407.

Piaggio, M., Alcantara, V., & Padilla, E. (2014). Greenhouse gas emissions and economic structure in Uruguay. Economic System Research, 26(2), 155–176.

Sajid, M., Gao, Q., & Kang, W. (2019). Transport sector carbon linkages of EU’s top seven emitters. Transportation Policy, 80, 24–38.

Shahbaz, M., Jam, F. A., Bibi, S., & Loganathan, N. (2016). Multivariate Granger causality between CO2 emissions, energy intensity and economic growth in Portugal: Evidence from cointegration and causality analysis. Technological and Economic Development of Economy, 22(1), 47–74.

Su, B., & Ang, B. W. (2011). Multi-region input–output analysis of CO2 emissions embodied in trade: The feedback effects. Ecological Economics, 71, 42–53.

Su, B., & Ang, B. W. (2017). Multiplicative structural decomposition analysis of aggregate embodied energy and emission intensities. Energy Economics, 65, 137–147.

Su, B., & Ang, B. W. (2020). Demand contributors and driving factors of Singapore’s aggregate carbon intensities. Energy Policy, 146, 111817.

Su, B., Ang, B. W., & Li, Y. (2019). Structural path and decomposition analysis of aggregate embodied energy and emission intensities. Energy Economics, 83, 345–360.

Su, B., Ang, B. W., & Liu, Y. (2021). Multi-region input–output analysis of embodied emissions and intensities: Spatial aggregation by linking regional and global datasets. Journal of Cleaner Production, 313, 127894.

Su, B., Huang, H. C., Ang, B. W., & Zhou, P. (2010). Input–output analysis of CO2 emissions embodied in trade: The effects of sector aggregation. Energy Economics, 32(1), 166–175.

Sun, C., Chen, L., & Xu, Y. (2020). Industrial linkage of embodied CO2 emissions: Evidence based on an absolute weighted measurement method. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 160, 104892.

Temurshoev, U., & Oosterhaven, J. (2014). Analytical and empirical comparison of policy-relevant key sector measures. Spatial Economic Analysis, 9(3), 284–308.

Timmer, M. P., Dietzenbacher, E., Los, B., Stehrer, R., & de Vries, G. J. (2015). An illustrated user guide to the World Input–Output Database: The case of global automotive production. Review of International Economics, 23(3), 575–605.

United Nations. (2008). International Standard Industrial Classification of All Economic Activities (ISIC) (Statistical papers Series M No. 4/Rev. 4). United Nations.

van der Zwaan, B., Kober, T., Longa, F. D., van der Laan, A., & Kramer, G. J. (2018). An integrated assessment of pathways for low-carbon development in Africa. Energy Policy, 117, 387–395.

Wang, S., Zhao, Y., & Wiedmann, T. (2019). Carbon emissions embodied in China–Australia trade:

A scenario analysis based on input–output analysis and panel regression models. Journal of Cleaner Production, 220, 721–731.

Wang, Y., Wang, W., Mao, G., Cai, H., Zuo, J., Wang, L., & Zhao, P. (2013). Industrial CO2 emissions in China based on the hypothetical extraction method: Linkage analysis. Energy Policy, 62, 1238–1244.

Wang, Z., Su, B., Xie, R., & Long, H. (2020). China’s aggregate embodied CO2 emission intensity from 2007 to 2012: A multi-region multiplicative structural decomposition analysis. Energy Economics, 85, 104568.

Xu, X., Wang, Q., Ran, C., & Mu, M. (2021). Is burden responsibility more effective? A value-added method for tracing worldwide carbon emissions. Ecological Economics, 181, 106889.

Yang, X., & Su, B. (2019). Impacts of international export on global and regional carbon intensity. Applied Energy, 253, 113552.

Yuan, J., Xie, H., Yang, D., Xiahou, X., Skibniewski, M. J., & Huang, W. (2020). Strategy formulation for the sustainable development of smart cities: A case study of Nanjing, China. International Journal of Strategic Property Management, 24(6), 379–399.

Zafirakis, D., Chalvatzis, K., & Baiocchi, G. (2015). Embodied CO2 emissions and cross-border electricity trade in Europe: Rebalancing burden sharing with energy storage. Applied Energy, 143, 283–300.

Zhang, W., Liu, Y., Feng, K., Hubacek, K., Wang, J., Liu, M., Jiang, L., Jiang, H., Liu, N., Zhang, P., Zhou, Y. & Bi, J. (2018a). Revealing environmental inequality hidden in China’s inter-regional trade. Environmental Science and Technology, 52(13), 7171–7181.

Zhang, W., Wang, F., Hubacek, K., Liu, Y., Wang, J., Feng, K., Jiang, L., Jiang, H., Zhang, B. & Bi, J. (2018b). Unequal exchange of air pollution and economic benefits embodied in China’s exports. Environmental Science and Technology, 52(7), 3888–3898.

Zhu, B., Su, B., & Li, Y. (2018). Input–output and structural decomposition analysis of India’s carbon emissions and intensity, 2007/08 – 2013/14. Applied Energy, 230, 1545–1556.

Zhu, B., Su, B., Li, Y., & Ng, T. S. (2020). Embodied energy and intensity in China’s (normal and processing) exports and their driving forces, 2005–2015. Energy Economics, 91, 104911.