An Exploration of Export Green Upgrading Paths from the Perspective of Policy Shocks and Carbon Trading
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.54097/yk6p8293Keywords:
Policy shock, carbon trading, export green upgrading, carbon border adjustment mechanism, green trade barriersAbstract
Amid the ongoing reform of global climate governance, green trade barriers have been tightening worldwide. The combination of overseas carbon border control measures and domestic carbon trading systems has profoundly changed the development pattern of China's foreign trade, and low-carbon development has become the mainstream trend for the export industry. This article conducts research from the perspectives of policy shocks and carbon trading, integrating public data from the Ministry of Ecology and Environment, the General Administration of Customs, and the European Commission for analysis. The EU Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM) will be officially implemented in 2026, covering six high-carbon categories such as steel and aluminum, directly raising the overall operating costs of similar domestic export commodities. In 2024, China’s domestic carbon market achieved steady trading growth, and the carbon pricing system guided enterprises to conduct energy-saving retrofits. In the same period, the export of domestic wind turbines increased by 71.9% year-on-year, and the export volume of photovoltaic products exceeded 200 billion yuan for four consecutive years. As global demand for green products continues to rise, this paper puts forward five transformation directions based on industrial realities: institutional coordination, market optimization, technological R&D, supply chain collaboration, and participation in international rule making. These findings help exporters avert green trade risks and maintain market shares, while offering practical insights for regulators to improve supporting policies.
Downloads
References
[1] Farrokhi, F., & Lashkaripour, A. (2025). Can trade policy mitigate climate change? Econometrica, 93(5), 1561–1599. https://doi.org/10.3982/ECTA21245 DOI: https://doi.org/10.3982/ECTA20153
[2] Jakob, M., Afionis, S., Åhman, M., Antoci, A., Arens, M., Ascensão, F., … & Willner, S. (2022). How trade policy can support the climate agenda. Science, 376(6600), 1401–1403. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.abl9007 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1126/science.abo4207
[3] Sitarz, J., Pahle, M., Osorio, S., Luderer, G., & Pietzcker, R. (2024). EU carbon prices signal high policy credibility and farsighted actors. Nature Energy, 9(6), 691–702. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41560-024-01482-7 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41560-024-01505-x
[4] International Organization for Standardization. (2018). Greenhouse gases—Carbon footprint of products—Requirements and guidelines for quantification. International Organization for Standardization.
[5] Durel, L. (2024). Border carbon adjustment compliance and the WTO: the interactional evolution of law. Journal of International Economic Law, 27(1), 18–40. https://doi.org/10.1093/jiel/jgae002 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/jiel/jgae007
[6] Wang, B., & Duan, M. (2025). Have China's emissions trading systems reduced carbon emissions? Firm-level evidence from the power sector. Applied Energy, 378, 124802. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2025.124802 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2024.124802
[7] Chen, Y. H., Wang, C., Nie, P. Y., & Chen, Z. R. (2020). A clean innovation comparison between carbon tax and cap-and-trade system. Energy Strategy Reviews, 29, 100483. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esr.2020.100483 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esr.2020.100483
[8] Zhang, Z. (2022). China’s carbon market: development, evaluation, coordination of local and national carbon markets, and common prosperity. Journal of Climate Finance, 1, 100001. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclifin.2022.100001 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclimf.2022.100001
[9] Zhang, D., Kong, Q., Wang, Y., & Vigne, S. A. (2023). Exquisite workmanship through net-zero emissions? The effects of carbon emission trading policy on firms' export product quality. Energy Economics, 123, 106701. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eneco.2023.106701 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eneco.2023.106701
[10] Costantini, V., Crespi, F., Marin, G., & Paglialunga, E. (2017). Eco-innovation, sustainable supply chains and environmental performance in European industries. Journal of Cleaner Production, 155, 141–154. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.09.039 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.09.038
[11] Gibbs, D., Deutz, P., & Proctor, A. (2005). Industrial ecology and eco‐industrial development: A potential paradigm for local and regional development? Regional Studies, 39(2), 171–183. https://doi.org/10.1080/0034340052000321320 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/003434005200059959
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 International Journal of World Economic Research
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
