This study provides a bibliometric analysis of green finance and green economy in relation to Sustainable Development Goal 7 (SDG 7) for the time span 2015–2024, using a combined bibliometric and Theory-Context-Characteristics-Methodology (TCCM) framework. The results show a rapid increase in studies, especially after 2020, consistent with a global rise in attention to clean energy transitions. The output of researchers’ work and its citation impact are highly concentrated in a few nations, mainly China, with significant regional inequities, especially in Africa and Latin America. The report indicates a strong focus on sustainable finance tools, renewable energy solutions, and carbon-reduction measures. However, the equity-oriented features of SDG 7, such as gender inclusion, decentralized energy systems, and energy access for marginalized populations, are not sufficiently integrated theoretically or empirically into the research. Dominant theoretical perspectives privilege environmental efficiency at the cost of social justice, suggesting a structural disconnection between research focus and the inclusive mandate of SDG 7. Drawing on these results, the study makes three overarching policy recommendations: (i) the formulation of tiered, context-specific green finance taxonomies with SDG 7 covenants embedded in green bond structures, supported by blended finance instruments to de-risk investment in energy-deficient markets; (ii) the enhancement of performance-based governance through SDG 7 equity sub-indicators, hybrid ESG disclosure standards and a global harmonized green taxonomy to prevent greenwashing; and (iii) the advancement of green fintech corridors, microfinance windows and decentralized finance mechanisms, such as blockchain-enabled credit scoring and mobile micro-investment platforms, to democratize capital access for marginalized communities. Together, these conclusions imply that finance is a systemic and inclusive engine of the global green economy in achieving SDG 7.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Singh et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: