THE IMPACT OF FOREIGN DIRECT INVESTMENT INFLOWS ON ENVIRONMENTAL POLLUTION: EVIDENCE FROM THE TOP FDI-RECIPIENT COUNTRIES

Öz

This study examines the effects of foreign direct investment (FDI) inflows on environmental pollution by taking as a sample the 20 countries that received the highest levels of FDI in 2023. The main objective of the study is to determine whether FDI generates a “pollution haven” or a “pollution halo” effect in these countries. To this end, a panel data set covering the period 1990–2023 is employed, and the analyses are conducted using the CCEMG and AMG estimators, which account for cross-section dependence and slope heterogeneity. The panel results indicate that FDI does not have a statistically significant effect on carbon emissions and that neither hypothesis is validated at the overall panel level. By contrast, strong and consistent evidence is found that per capita GDP and energy consumption increase emissions at the panel level. Country-specific analyses reveal that the environmental effects of FDI differ markedly in both direction and magnitude. The emission-increasing effects observed in Singapore and Canada, together with the emission-reducing effect identified in Switzerland, clearly confirm this heterogeneity. This variation indicates that the environmental outcomes of investment depend on country-specific economic structures, energy profiles, and regulatory frameworks, and it constitutes the study’s original contribution to the literature.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Foreign Direct Investment
• Pollution Haven
• Pollution Halo
• Economic Growth
• Energy Consumption

DOĞRUDAN YABANCI YATIRIM GİRİŞLERİNİN ÇEVRESEL KİRLİLİĞE ETKİSİ: EN ÇOK YATIRIM ALAN ÜLKELERDEN KANITLAR

Öz

çevresel kirlilik üzerindeki etkilerini incelemektedir. Araştırmanın temel amacı, doğrudan yabancı yatırımların bu ülkelerde “kirlilik cenneti” mi yoksa “kirlilik halesi” mi oluşturduğunu ortaya koymaktır. Bu kapsamda 1990–2023 dönemine ait panel veri seti kullanılmış ve analizler, yatay kesit bağımlılığı ile eğim heterojenliğini dikkate alan CCEMG ve AMG tahmincileriyle gerçekleştirilmiştir. Panel sonuçları, doğrudan yabancı yatırımların karbon emisyonları üzerinde istatistiksel olarak anlamlı bir etkisinin bulunmadığını ve her iki hipotezin de panel genelinde doğrulanmadığını göstermektedir. Buna karşın, panel genelinde kişi başına düşen GSYİH ve enerji tüketiminin emisyonları artırdığı yönünde güçlü ve tutarlı bulgulara ulaşılmaktadır. Ülke bazlı analizler, doğrudan yabancı yatırımların çevresel etkilerinin yön ve büyüklük açısından belirgin biçimde farklılaştığını ortaya koymaktadır. Singapur ve Kanada’daki artış yönlü etkiler ile İsviçre’deki azaltıcı etki, bu farklılaşmayı açık biçimde doğrulamaktadır. Bu farklılaşma, yatırımın çevresel sonuçlarının ülkelere özgü ekonomik yapı, enerji profili ve düzenleyici çerçeveye bağlı olarak değiştiğini göstermekte ve çalışmanın özgün katkısını oluşturmaktadır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Doğrudan Yabancı Yatırım
• Kirlilik Cenneti
• Kirlilik Halesi
• Ekonomik Büyüme
• Enerji Tüketimi

Kaynakça

1. Abbasi, M. A., Nosheen, M. ve Rahman, H. U. (2023). “An approach to the pollution haven and pollution halo hypot-heses in Asian countries”, Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 30/17, 49270-49289. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-023-25548-x
2. Abdo, A. B., Li, B., Zhang, X., Lu, J. ve Rasheed, A. (2020). “Influence of FDI on environmental pollution in selected Arab countries: a spatial econometric analysis perspective”, Environmental Science and Pollution Rese-arch, 27/22, 28222-28246. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-020-08810-4
3. Abdulwakil, M. M., Abdul-Rahim, A. S., Sulaiman, C., Alsaleh, M., Raji, A. A. ve Datti, M. I. (2023). “Income Heterogene-ity and the Pollution Haven and Halo Hypotheses: Empirical Evidence from Developing Countries”, In BIO Web of Conferences (Vol. 73, p. 02007), EDP Sciences. https://doi.org/10.1051/bioconf/20237302007
4. Adebayo, G. (2023). “Testing The Pollution Halo Hypothesis for US: Is There a Link Between FDI and Environmental Quality?”. http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.5080597
5. Achuo, E. ve Ojong, N. (2025). “Foreign direct investment, economic growth and environmental quality in Africa: revisiting the pollution haven and environmental Kuznets curve hypotheses”, Journal of Economic Studies, 52/4, 673-691. https://doi.org/10.1108/JES-02-2024-0065
6. Ahmad, M., Jabeen, G. ve Wu, Y. (2021). “Heterogeneity of pollution haven/halo hypothesis and environmental Kuz-nets curve hypothesis across development levels of Chinese provinces”, Journal of Cleaner Produc-tion, 285/124898. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.124898
7. Al Numan, A., Tahrim, F., Esquivias, M. A., Biswas, M. K. ve Primanthi, M. R. (2025). “Testing the Pollution Haven and Inverted N-Shaped EKC Hypotheses in the ASEAN Region: The Impact of FDI and Energy Mix on Environ-mental Quality”, Environmental and Sustainability Indicators, 100698. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indic.2025.100698
8. Assamoi, G. R., Wang, S., Liu, Y. ve Gnangoin, Y. T. B. (2020). “Investigating the pollution haven hypothesis in Cote d’Ivoire: evidence from autoregressive distributed lag (ARDL) approach with structural bre-aks”, Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 27/14, 16886-16899. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-020-08246-w

9. Atılgan, D. (2024). “Kirlilik Sığınağı ve Kirlilik Halesi Hipotezlerinin Test Edilmesi: E7 ve G7 Ülkelerinin Karşılaştırmalı Analizi”, Kahramanmaraş Sütçü İmam Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 21/2, 581-593. https://doi.org/10.33437/ksusbd.1461585
10. Balsalobre-Lorente, D., Gokmenoglu, K. K., Taspinar, N. ve Cantos-Cantos, J. M. (2019). “An approach to the pollution haven and pollution halo hypotheses in MINT countries”, Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 26(22), 23010-23026. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-019-05446-x
11. Bekele, M., Sassi, M., Jemal, K. ve Ahmed, B. (2024). “Human capital development and economic sustainability linkage in Sub-Saharan African countries: Novel evidence from augmented mean group approach”, Heliyon, 10(2). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e24323
12. Bekun, F. V., Gyamfi, B. A., Olasehinde-Williams, G. ve Yadav, A. (2024). “Revisiting the foreign direct Investment-CO2 emissions nexus within the N-EKC framework: evidence from South Asian countries”, Sustainable Futures, 8, 100357. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sftr.2024.100357
13. Benzerrouk, Z., Abid, M. ve Sekrafi, H. (2021). “Pollution haven or halo effect? A comparative analysis of developing and developed countries”. Energy Rep 7: 4862–4871. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egyr.2021.07.076
14. Bhujabal, P., Sethi, N. ve Padhan, P. C. (2021). “ICT, foreign direct investment and environmental pollution in major Asia Pacific countries”, Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 28/31, 42649-42669.
15. Bond, S. ve Eberhardt, M. (2013). “Accounting for unobserved heterogeneity in panel time series models”, University of Oxford, 1/11, 1-12.
16. Chang, T.Y., Chen, S.T. ve Wang, M.C., (2024). “Using Bootstrap Fourier Granger Causality Test in Quantiles to Re-examine Pollution Haven/Halo hypotheses in China and G3 Countries”, Panoeconomicus, 1–22. https://doi.org/10.2298/PAN220609002C
17. Chaudhry, I. S., Yin, W., Ali, S. A., Faheem, M., Abbas, Q., Farooq, F. ve Ur Rahman, S. (2022). “Moderating role of institutional quality in validation of pollution haven hypothesis in BRICS: a new evidence by using DCCE appro-ach”, Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 29/6, 9193-9202. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-021-16087-4
18. Danish. (2020). “Moving toward sustainable development: The relationship between water productivity, natural resource rent, international trade, and carbon dioxide emissions”, Sustainable Development, 28/4, 540-549. https://doi.org/10.1002/sd.2007
19. Demir, Y. ve Görür, Ç. (2020). “OECD Ülkelerine Ait Çeşitli Enerji Tüketimleri ve Ekonomik Büyüme Arasındaki İlişkinin Panel Eşbütünleşme Analizi ile İncelenmesi”, EKOIST Journal of Econometrics and Statistics, 32, 15-33. https://doi.org/10.26650/ekoist.2020.32.0005 Destek, M. A. ve Okumus, I. (2019). “Does pollution haven hypothesis hold in newly industrialized countries? Eviden-ce from ecological footprint”, Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 26/23, 23689-23695. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-019-05614-z
20. Destek, M. A. ve Aslan, A. (2020). “Disaggregated renewable energy consumption and environmental pollution nexus in G-7 countries”, Renewable energy, 151, 1298-1306. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2019.11.138
21. Eberhardt, M. ve Bond, S. (2009). “Cross-section dependence in nonstationary panel models: a novel estimator”. https://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/17692/
22. Georgescu, I. ve Kinnunen, J. (2023). “The role of foreign direct investments, urbanization, productivity, and energy consumption in Finland’s carbon emissions: an ARDL approach”, Environmental Science and Pollution Rese-arch, 30/37, 87685-87694. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-023-28680-w
23. Grossman, G. M. ve Krueger, A. B. (1991). “Environmental impacts of a North American free trade agreement”.
24. Guzel, A. E. ve Okumus, İ. (2020). “Revisiting the pollution haven hypothesis in ASEAN-5 countries: new insights from panel data analysis”. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 27/15, 18157-18167. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-020-08317-y
25. Holtbrügge, D. ve Raghavan, N. (2025). “Environmental effects of foreign direct investment in India: pollution haven or pollution halo?”, Critical Perspectives on International Business, 21/3, 417-442. https://doi.org/10.1108/cpoib-06-2024-0064
26. Huang, Y., Chen, X., Zhu, H., Huang, C. ve Tian, Z. (2019). “The Heterogeneous Effects of FDI and Foreign Trade on CO₂ Emissions: Evidence from China”, Mathematical Problems in Engineering, 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1155/2019/9612492
27. Hundie, S. K. (2021). “Income inequality, economic growth and carbon dioxide emissions nexus: empirical evidence from Ethiopia”, Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 28/32, 43579-43598. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-021-13341-7
28. Hunjra, A. I., Bouri, E., Azam, M., Azam, R. I. ve Dai, J. (2024). “Economic growth and environmental sustainability in developing economies”, Research in International Business and Finance, 70, 102341. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ribaf.2024.102341
29. Khan, H., Weili, L., Khan, I. ve Zhang, J. (2023). “Exploring the nexus between energy consumption, income inequality and poverty, economic growth, and carbon dioxide emission: evidence from two step system generalized met-hod of moments”, Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 30/13, 35996-36011. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-022-24695-x
30. Kisswani, K. M. ve Zaitouni, M. (2023). “Does FDI affect environmental degradation? Examining pollution haven and pollution halo hypotheses using ARDL modelling”, Journal of the Asia Pacific Economy, 28/4, 1406- 1432. https://doi.org/10.1080/13547860.2021.1949086
31. Koçak, E. (2024). “Çevresel Kuznets Eğrisi Hipotezi Geçerli Mi? AB Ülkelerinden Kanıtlar”. Gaziantep Üniversitesi Sos-yal Bilimler Dergisi, 23/2, 654-666. https://doi.org/10.21547/jss.1418339
32. Koçak, E. (2025). “Foreign Direct Investment and Environmental Impacts in D8 Countries: Analysis of the Pollution Haven, Pollution Halo and Environmental Kuznets Curve Hypotheses”, Uluslararası Ekonomi ve Yenilik Dergi-si, 11/1, 121-138. https://doi.org/10.20979/ueyd.1643272
33. Kömürcüoğlu, Ö. F. ve Değer, M. K. (2022). “Doğrudan Yabancı Yatırımlar ile Çevre Kirliliği İlişkisi: Seçilmiş Ülke Grup-ları Üzerine Panel Veri Analizleri”, Pamukkale Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 51, 371-381.
34. Musah, M., Mensah, I. A., Alfred, M., Mahmood, H., Murshed, M., Omari-Sasu, A. Y., Boateng, F., Nyeadi, J. D. ve Cof-fie, C. P. K. (2022). “Reinvestigating the pollution haven hypothesis: the nexus between foreign direct invest-ments and environmental quality in G-20 countries”, Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 29/21, 31330- 31347. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-021-17508-0
35. Ozkan, O., Coban, M. N., Iortile, I. B. ve Usman, O. (2023). “Reconsidering the environmental Kuznets curve, pollution haven, and pollution halo hypotheses with carbon efficiency in China: A dynamic ARDL -simulations app-roach”, Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 30/26, 68163-68176. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-023-26671-5
36. Paramati, S. R. ve Roca, E. (2019). “Does tourism drive house prices in the OECD economies? Evidence from augmen-ted mean group estimator”, Tourism Management, 74, 392-395. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2019.04.023
37. Pazienza, P. (2019). “The impact of FDI in the OECD manufacturing sector on CO2 emission: Evidence and policy is-sues”, Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 77, 60-68. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2019.04.002
38. Pesaran, M. H. (2004). General diagnostic tests for cross section dependence in panels. Cambridge Working Pa-pers. Economics, 1240/1, 1.
39. Pesaran, M. H. (2007). “A simple panel unit root test in the presence of cross‐section dependence”, Journal of app-lied econometrics, 22(2), 265-312.
40. Pesaran, M. H. ve Yamagata, T. (2008). “Testing slope homogeneity in large panels”, Journal of econometrics, 142/1, 50-93.
41. Pilatin, A., Soto, G. H. ve Barut, A. (2025). “Towards a Less Polluted: The Impact of Governance Indicators and Re-newable Energy Investments and Technology on Carbon Emissions in European Countries”, Geological Journal. https://doi.org/10.1002/gj.5243
42. Seçilmiş, N. (2023). “Relationship between Foreign Direct Investments, Trade Openness and CO2 in Emerging Market Economies”, EKEV Akademi Dergisi (Özel Sayı), 255-267. https://doi.org/10.17753/sosekev.1345492
43. Shaari, M. S., Hussain, N. E., Abdullah, H. ve Kamil, S. (2014). “Relationship among foreign direct investment, econo-mic growth and CO2 emission: a panel data analysis”, International Journal of Energy Economics and Policy, 4/4, 706-715.
44. Sun, C., Zhang, F. ve Xu, M. (2017). “Investigation of pollution haven hypothesis for China: an ARDL approach with breakpoint unit root tests”, Journal of cleaner production, 161, 153-164. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.05.119
45. Tenaw, D. ve Hawitibo, A. L. (2021). “Carbon decoupling and economic growth in Africa: Evidence from production and consumption-based carbon emissions”, Resources, Environment and Sustainability, 6, 100040. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resenv.2021.100040
46. Tripathy, P., Brahmi, M., Pallayil, B. ve Mishra, B. R. (2025). “Mediating Effects of Foreign Direct Investment Inflows on Carbon Dioxide Emissions”, Economies, 13/1, 18. https://doi.org/10.3390/economies13010018
47. UNCTAD, (2024). https://unctad.org/publication/world-investment-report-2024 (Erişim Tarihi:09.08.2025).
48. Wang, C. ve Uctum, M. (2024). “Ecological footprint of FDI inflows and income threshold effect: New results with a new approach to income classification”. Environmental and Sustainability Indicators, 22, 100356. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indic.2024.100356
49. Wang, Q., Yang, T., Li, R. ve Wang, X. (2023). “Reexamining the impact of foreign direct investment on carbon emissi-ons: does per capita GDP matter?”, Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, 10/1, 1-18. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-023-01895-5
50. Waqih, M. A. U., Bhutto, N. A., Ghumro, N. H., Kumar, S. ve Salam, M. A. (2019). “Rising environmental degradation and impact of foreign direct investment: an empirical evidence from SAARC region”, Journal of environmental management, 243, 472-480. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2019.05.001
51. Yu, Y. ve Shi, J. (2022). Environmental regulation, low-carbon technology progress and energy efficiency. Frontiers in Environmental Science, 10, 1012229. https://doi.org/10.3389/fenvs.2022.1012229