Challenges and Trends in Green Finance in the Context of Sustainable Development—A Bibliometric Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Green finance in the context of sustainable development sits within the broader discourse of environmental economics and sustainable finance. Their integration has become imperative in addressing global challenges, with the aims of understanding how financial mechanisms can be aligned with sustainability goals, investigating the role of green finance in promoting environmentally friendly investments, and fostering sustainable development. This bibliometric analysis explores the evolution, trends, and challenges in green finance research. It examines 436 articles published between 2016 and 2024, revealing insights into influential publications, authors, journals, institutions, and countries engaged in green finance for sustainability. The study identifies China, the UK, and Pakistan as leaders in research output and citation impact. Furthermore, it highlights the interdisciplinary nature of green finance, reflected in diverse publication outlets spanning environmental, social, and economic domains. The analysis underscores the increasing global interest in green finance, as evidenced by the growing citation rates over time. Key findings include the pivotal role of green finance in energy efficiency, renewable energy development, and the promotion of sustainable economic growth. Overall, this research provides valuable insights for policymakers, researchers, and practitioners, emphasizing the importance of interdisciplinary collaboration and continued research efforts in advancing sustainable finance agendas.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.010 | 0.056 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.091 | 0.207 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".