Systematic review explores green economy evolution, highlighting gaps and future directions for policy and research.
Over the past three decades, the green economy (GE) has emerged as a pivotal framework for reconciling economic growth with environmental sustainability and social equity. Despite its growing prominence in global development discourse, achieving an effective balance between economic expansion and ecological integrity remains a persistent challenge. Existing literature on the green economy often provides fragmented insights into its components, such as green finance, eco-innovation, renewable energy, and circular economy practices, without offering a holistic understanding of its conceptual and empirical evolution. To address this gap, this study conducts a comprehensive systematic literature review (SLR) of 65 peer-reviewed articles indexed in Scopus, covering the period from 1992 to 2025. The analysis explores the intellectual progression of GE, encompassing its theoretical foundations, key pillars, policy frameworks, empirical trends, challenges, and emerging directions. Findings reveal that while significant strides have been made in integrating green principles into economic and policy systems, implementation remains uneven across countries, hindered by structural inequalities, policy incoherence, and issues such as greenwashing. This study highlights four thematic trajectories within the GE literature: green investment and finance, eco-innovation and technology, green employment and inclusive growth, and governance and institutional transformation. It further identifies research and policy gaps, emphasizing the need for cross-sectoral integration, just transition mechanisms, and stronger evidence-based policymaking. Ultimately, this study provides a synthesized understanding of the evolution of the green economy and outlines strategic pathways for advancing sustainable, inclusive, and resilient economic systems aligned with global climate and development goals.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Miyan et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: