All Issue

2026 Vol.35, Issue 1 Preview Page

Research Paper

Digital Services Trade, Carbon Intensity, and Carbon Transfer in South Korea: Production- vs. Consumption-based Accounting Approaches

한국 디지털서비스 무역이 탄소집약도와 탄소전가에 미치는 영향: 생산 및 소비기반회계 탄소배출의 실증분석

최현정*

Hyun-Jung Choi*

*강원대학교 글로벌융합학부 강사, 단독저자(e-mail: hj.choi@kangwon.ac.kr)
*Lecturer, Department of Global Convergence, Kangwon National University, Sole author (e-mail: hj.choi@kangwon.ac.kr)
31 March 2026. pp. 135-166
PDF Citation
Abstract
This study analyzes how trade in digitally deliverable services (DDS) and non-digitally deliverable services (NDS) affects carbon intensity and emissions transfer under production-based (PBA) and consumpition-based accounting (CBA) frameworks. Using bilateral panel data between Korea and 90 countries from 2005 to 2017, it utilizes fixed-effects PPML estimations for carbon intensity and OLS estimations for emissions transfer, measured as the gap between PBA and CBA emissions. The results show that Korea’s DDS exports do not significantly affect carbon intensity at either the production or consumption stage, whereas DDS imports increase production-based carbon intensity while significantly reducing emissions transfer. Industry-level analysis indicates that these effects of DDS imports are most pronounced in manufacturing and energy and infrastructure-related sectors, while DDS exports remain insignificant across all industries. Finally, the findings suggest that DDS services trade does not systematically induce emissions transfer across borders and offers policy-relevant insights for integrating digital transformation with carbon neutrality strategies.
Keywords
Digitally deliverable services
Carbon intensity
Carbon transfer
본 연구는 2005~2017년 기간 동안 한국 대 전 세계 90여 개국 간 국가 쌍 패널자료를 활용하여, 디지털서비스(DDS)와 비디지털서비스(NDS) 무역이 생산기반회계 및 소비기반회계기준 탄소집약도와 탄소전가(emissions transfer)에 미치는 영향을 실증분석한다. 고정효과를 포함한 PPML과 생산-소비 배출 격차를 활용한 OLS 추정으로 분석한다. 분석 결과, 한국의 DDS 수출은 국내 생산단계와 해외 소비단계 모두에서 탄소집약도를 유의하게 변화시키지 않은 반면, DDS 수입은 생산기반회계 기준 탄소집약도를 증가시키는 동시에 탄소전가를 유의하게 감소시키는 것으로 나타났다. 산업별 분석에서도 DDS 수출은 유의한 영향을 미치지 않은 반면, DDS 수입은 제조업과 에너지‧기반시설 부문에서 생산기반 탄소집약도를 증가시키고 탄소전가를 완화하는 효과가 가장 뚜렷하게 관찰되었다. 이를 통해 본 연구는 무역-환경 문헌을 확장함과 동시에, 디지털 전환과 탄소중립 정책 간의 연계를 위한 정책적 함의를 제공하고자 한다.
키워드
디지털서비스
탄소집약도
탄소전가
References
  1. 김수이, “ICT가 CO2 배출에 미치는 영향: 경제성장, 무역개방성, 금융발전과의 연관관계하에서의 분석”, ｢자원‧환경경제연구｣, 제30권 제2호, 2021, pp. 299~323.
  2. 신동천, “생산기반회계와 소비기반회계를 활용한 한국의 탄소배출 구조 분석”, ｢환경경제연구｣, 제22권 제1호, 2013, pp. 31~52.
  3. 오형나‧홍종호, “디지털 전환의 기후효과: 현황과 전망”, ｢한국경제포럼｣, 제14권 제4호, 2022, pp. 1~24.
  4. Aichele, R. and G. Felbermayr, “Kyoto and Carbon Leakage: An Empirical Analysis of the Carbon Content of Bilateral Trade,” The Review of Economics and Statistics, Vol. 97, No. 1, 2015, pp. 104~115. 10.1162/REST_a_00438
  5. Asia Development Bank (ADB), Asian Economic Integration Report 2022: Advancing Digital Services Trade in Asia and the Pacific, Manila, Asian Development Bank, 2022.
  6. Barrett, J., G. P. Peters, T. Wiedmann, M. Scott, K. Lenzen, K. Roelich, and C. Le Quéré, “Consumption-Based GHG Emission Accounting: A UK case Study,” Energy Policy, Vol. 13, No. 4, 2013, pp. 451~470. 10.1080/14693062.2013.788858
  7. Böhringer, C., J. C. Carbone, and T. F. Rutherford, “Embodied Carbon Tariffs,” Scandinavian Journal of Economics, Vol. 120, No. 1, 2016, pp. 183~210. 10.1111/sjoe.12211
  8. Chen, F. and G. Jiang, “How Does the Digital Service Trade Nonlinearly Affect Carbon Emissions? Empirical Evidence from G20 Countries,” Environmental Science and Pollution Research, Vol. 30, No. 59, 2023, pp. 123022~123038. 10.1007/s11356-023-31005-6
  9. Clarke, L. E. and Coauthors, “Assessing Transformation Pathways,” Climate Change 2014: Mitigation of Climate Change, Cambridge University Press, 2014, pp. 413~510. 10.1017/CBO9781107415416.012
  10. Dechezleprêtre, A., D. Nachtigall, O. Solleder, and B. Saffar, “Carbon Border Adjustments: The Potential Effects of the EU CBAM along the Supply Chain,” OECD Science, Technology and Industry Working Papers, No. 2025/02, OECD Publishing, 2025. 10.1787/e8c3d060-en
  11. Dimian, G. C., M. Maftei, J. Jablonský, E. Marin, and S. M. Olaru, “The Influence of Digitalization on Greenhouse Gas Emissions in the European Union: The Analysis of the Mediating Effect of Renewable Energy Consumption,” Journal of the Knowledge Economy, 2025. Advance Online Publication. 10.1007/s13132-025-02657-1
  12. Gao, J., Y. Zhang, and W. Chen, International Trade as a Double-edged Sword: The Impact of Trade on Carbon Emissions, Frontiers in Energy Research, 9, 764914. 2021. 10.3389/fenrg.2021.764914
  13. Grossman, G. M., and A. B. Krueger, “Economic Growth and the Environment,” Quarterly Journal of Economics, Vol. 110, No. 2, 1995, pp. 353~377. 10.2307/2118443
  14. Hao, Y., Y. Guo, H. Wu, and F. Mangır, “The Role of Information and Communication Technology on Green Total Factor Energy Efficiency: Does Environmental Regulation work?” Business Strategy and the Environment, Vol. 31, No. 1, 2021, pp. 403~424. 10.1002/bse.2901
  15. Hilty, L. M. and B. Aebischer, “ICT for Sustainability: An Emerging Research Field,” ICT Innovations for Sustainability, Springer International Publishing, 2015, pp. 3~36. 10.1007/978-3-319-09228-7_1
  16. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), AR6 Synthesis Report: Climate Change 2023, Geneva, IPCC, 2023.
  17. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), Climate Change 2007: Mitigation of Climate Change, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2007. 10.1017/CBO9780511546013
  18. International Monetary Fund (IMF), the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), the United Nations (UN) and the World Trade Organization (WTO), Handbook on Measuring Digital Trade, Second Edition, OECD Publishing, Paris/IMF, Washington D.C./UNCTAD, Geneva 10/WTO, Geneva, 2023.
  19. Kanemoto, K., D. Moran, and E. G. Hertwich, “Mapping the Carbon Footprint of Nations,” Environmental Science & Technology, Vol. 50, No. 19, 2016, pp. 10512~10517. 10.1021/acs.est.6b03227
  20. Lange, S., J. Pohl, and T. Santarius, “Digitalization and Energy Consumption: Does ICT Reduce Energy Demand?” Ecological Economics, Vol. 176, 106760, 2020.10.1016/j.ecolecon.2020.106760
  21. Larch, M., J. Wanner, Y. V. Yotov, and T. Zylkin, “Currency Unions and Trade: A PPML Re-assessment with High-dimensional Fixed Effects,” Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, Vol. 81, No. 3, 2019, pp. 487~510. 10.1111/obes.12283
  22. Lenzen, K., M. Kanemoto, D. Moran, and A. Geschke, “Mapping the Structure of the World Economy,” Environmental Science & Technology, Vol. 46, No. 15, 2012, pp. 8374~8381. 10.1021/es300171x
  23. Li, X., Y. Hu, Q. Ding, and Y. Jiang, “Impact of the Digital Trade on Lowering Carbon Emissions in 46 Countries,” Scientific Reports, Vol. 14, No. 25957, 2024. 10.1038/s41598-024-76586-5 39472659 PMC11522511
  24. Martin, R., M. Muûls, L. B. de Preux, and U. J. Wagner, “Industry Compensation Under Relocation Risk: A Firm-level Analysis of the EU Emissions Trading Scheme,” The American Economic Review, Vol. 104, No. 8, 2014, pp. 2482~2508. 10.1257/aer.104.8.2482
  25. Meng, B., R. Wang, and M. Li, “Tracing Carbon Dioxide Emissions Along Global Value Chains,” Global Value Chain Development Report 2023, WTO & IDE-JETRO, 2023, pp. 189~227.
  26. Moran, D., and R. Wood, “Convergence between the EORA, WIOD, EXIOBASE and OpenEU’s Consumption-Based Carbon Accounts,” Economic Systems Research, Vol. 26, No. 3, 2014, pp. 245~261. 10.1080/09535314.2014.935298
  27. Naegele, H. and A. Zaklan, “Does the EU ETS Cause Carbon Leakage in European Manufacturing?” Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Vol. 93, 2019, pp. 125~147. 10.1016/j.jeem.2018.11.004
  28. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD)-World Trade Organization (WTO), The OECD-WTO Balanced Trade in Services Database (BaTIS). OECD-WTO, Paris/Geneva, 2025.
  29. Peters, G. P. and E. G. Hertwich, “CO2 Embodied in International Trade with Implications for Global Climate Policy,” Environmental Science & Technology, Vol. 42, No. 5, 2008, pp. 1401~1407. 10.1021/es072023k
  30. Peters, G. P., J. C. Minx, C. L. Weber, and O. Edenhofer, “Growth in Emission Transfers via International Trade from 1990 to 2008,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Vol. 108, No. 21, 2011, pp. 8903~8908. 10.1073/pnas.1006388108 21518879 PMC3102371
  31. Pöyhönen, P., “A Tentative Model for the Volume of Trade Between Countries,” Weltwirtschaftliches Archiv, 90, 1963, pp. 93~100.
  32. Sato, M., K. Neuhoff, C. Grazi, F. Pappas, B. Cournède, and P. Dumas, “Sectoral Emissions- intensity: A Comparison Across Countries and Over Time,” Energy Policy, Vol. 78, 2015, pp. 63~74.
  33. Silva, J., J. Santos, and S. Tenreyro, “Further Simulation Evidence on the Performance of the Poisson Pseudo-maximum Likelihood Estimator,” Economics Letters, Vol. 112, No. 2, 2011, pp. 220~222. 10.1016/j.econlet.2011.05.008
  34. Stern, D. I., “The Environmental Kuznets Curve after 25 Years,” Journal of Bioeconomics, Vol. 20, No. 1, 2017, pp. 7~28. 10.1007/s10818-017-9243-1
  35. Tinbergen, J., Shaping the World Economy- Suggestions for an International Economic Policy, 1962, New York: The Twentieth Century Fund.
  36. World Trade Organization (WTO), World Trade Report 2021: Economic Resilience and Trade, Geneva, World Trade Organization, 2021.
  37. Zhang, Z., L. Chen, J. Li, and S. Ding, “Digital Economy Development and Carbon Emission Intensity-mechanisms and Evidence from 72 Countries,” Scientific Reports, Vol. 14, No. 28459, 2024. 10.1038/s41598-024-78831-3 39557908 PMC11574039
Information
  • Publisher :Environmental and Resource Economics Review
  • Publisher(Ko) :자원 · 환경경제연구
  • Journal Title :자원·환경경제연구
  • Journal Title(Ko) :Environmental and Resource Economics Review
  • Volume : 35
  • No :1
  • Pages :135-166
  • DOI :https://doi.org/10.15266/KEREA.2026.35.1.135
Journal Informaiton 자원·환경경제연구 자원·환경경제연구
E-Book
Manuscript Submission
한국환경경제학회
Manuscript Submission
한국자원경제학회
  • NRF
  • KISTI Current Status
  • KISTI Cited-by
  • crosscheck
  • orcid
  • open access
  • ccl
Journal Informaiton Journal Informaiton - close