ArticleiScience2026
Does carbon emission rights trading foster energy-saving technological innovation? Evidence from listed manufacturing firms in China.
Article in iScience, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
China's green transition is advancing, yet fossil fuels remain dominant, underscoring the importance of energy-saving technological innovation (ESTI) for low-carbon development. Existing studies mainly focus on the impact of carbon emissions trading (CET) on broad green innovation, while evidence on CET-induced ESTI remains limited. Using 3.09 million patent texts from Chinese listed manufacturing firms during 2008-2023, we employ a large language model (LLM) to identify firm-level ESTI and estimate the effect of CET through a staggered difference-in-differences (DIDs) approach. Results show that CET significantly promotes ESTI, and the findings remain robust across multiple tests. Mechanism analysis reveals three channels: increased carbon-risk exposure, substitution between government subsidies and market incentives, and correction of market inefficiencies. The effect is stronger among firms with lower pollution intensity and those without greenwashing behavior. These findings provide micro-level evidence on how environmental regulation fosters ESTI and offer implications for carbon-market and subsidy design.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.