ArticlePDF Available

Are green bonds and sustainable cryptocurrencies truly sustainable? Evidence from a wavelet coherence analysis



This article aims to explore the co-movement of daily returns among S&P green bonds (GB/GBs), the top five sustainable cryptocurrencies, Bitcoin, the Dow Jones Sustainability World Index (DJSWI) and the Dow Jones Sustainability Emerging Market Index (DJSEMI) to determine whether GBs, Bitcoin and sustainable cryptocurrencies are truly sustainable; in addition, it investigates hedging and diversification opportunities. Using a partial wavelet coherence framework to capture the bivariate co-movement, our findings show strong (weak) positive co-movements among GB (sustainable cryptocurrencies) and DJSWI returns, where GBs (sustainable cryptocurrencies) have a heterogeneous leading role in the short-term and long-term horizons. Results indicate moderate positive (negative) co-movement among GBs and sustainable cryptocurrencies (Bitcoin) and DJSWI in the short run (long run). Overall, the results show GB (sustainable cryptocurrencies) acts as a diversifier for Bitcoin and sustainable cryptocurrencies in most cases (DJSWI). However, increasing Bitcoin returns adversely impacts the DJSWI in the long run. Findings are equally imperative for green investors, crypto traders and policymakers, where investors and traders can earn financial and social returns, and policy-makers can deploy suitable policies for the development of sustainable cryptocurrency mining processes. The role of Bitcoin is alarming for the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals and global greener economy.
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at
Economic Research-Ekonomska Istraživanja
ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage:
Are green bonds and sustainable cryptocurrencies
truly sustainable? Evidence from a wavelet
coherence analysis
Inzamam Ul Haq, Apichit Maneengam, Supat Chupradit & Chunhui Huo
To cite this article: Inzamam Ul Haq, Apichit Maneengam, Supat Chupradit & Chunhui
Huo (2022): Are green bonds and sustainable cryptocurrencies truly sustainable? Evidence
from a wavelet coherence analysis, Economic Research-Ekonomska Istraživanja, DOI:
To link to this article:
© 2022 The Author(s). Published by Informa
UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis
Published online: 31 May 2022.
Submit your article to this journal
View related articles
View Crossmark data
Are green bonds and sustainable cryptocurrencies truly
sustainable? Evidence from a wavelet coherence analysis
Inzamam Ul Haq
, Apichit Maneengam
, Supat Chupradit
Chunhui Huo
Department of Management Sciences, COMSATS University Islamabad, Islamabad, Pakistan;
Department of Mechanical Engineering Technology, King Mongkuts Institute of Technology North
Bangkok, Bangkok, Thailand;
Department of Occupational Therapy, Faculty of Associated Medical
Sciences, Chiang Mai University, Chiang Mai, Thailand;
Asia-Australia Business College, Liaoning
University, Shenyang, China
This article aims to explore the co-movement of daily returns
among S&P green bonds (GB/GBs), the top five sustainable cryp-
tocurrencies, Bitcoin, the Dow Jones Sustainability World Index
(DJSWI) and the Dow Jones Sustainability Emerging Market Index
(DJSEMI) to determine whether GBs, Bitcoin and sustainable cryp-
tocurrencies are truly sustainable; in addition, it investigates hedg-
ing and diversification opportunities. Using a partial wavelet
coherence framework to capture the bivariate co-movement, our
findings show strong (weak) positive co-movements among GB
(sustainable cryptocurrencies) and DJSWI returns, where GBs (sus-
tainable cryptocurrencies) have a heterogeneous leading role in
the short-term and long-term horizons. Results indicate moderate
positive (negative) co-movement among GBs and sustainable
cryptocurrencies (Bitcoin) and DJSWI in the short run (long run).
Overall, the results show GB (sustainable cryptocurrencies) acts as
a diversifier for Bitcoin and sustainable cryptocurrencies in most
cases (DJSWI). However, increasing Bitcoin returns adversely
impacts the DJSWI in the long run. Findings are equally impera-
tive for green investors, crypto traders and policymakers, where
investors and traders can earn financial and social returns, and
policy-makers can deploy suitable policies for the development of
sustainable cryptocurrency mining processes. The role of Bitcoin
is alarming for the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals
and global greener economy.
Received 29 September 2021
Accepted 11 May 2022
Green bonds; sustainable
cryptocurrencies; Bitcoin;
sustainability world index;
wavelet coherence;
G11; G15; Q56; O1; O2
1. Introduction
Sustainability is a key antecedent of sustainable social, environmental and economic
development. The Department of Economics and Social Affairs of the United Nations
launched the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development in 2015. It expounds 17
CONTACT Chunhui Huo
ß2022 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group.
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (
licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is
properly cited.
development goals and 169 targets. The mission of the sustainable development goals
(SDGs) is to transform the worldwide society to a better sustainable future for the
entire planetary ecosystem by 2030. Addressing sustainability challenges requires an
enormous effort (de Oliveira et al., 2020). According to an estimate by Trade and
Development, US$5 to 7 trillion is indispensable to achieve the forecasted targets and
goals (de Oliveira et al., 2020). Therefore, the role of individual and institutional
investors is crucial to mobilize resources and sustainable investments.
Climate change has become an existential challenge for people living around the
globe (Xuefeng et al., 2021). Currently, greenhouse gas emissions are playing a devas-
tating role in fostering global warming due to the increasing pace of their rise. Rising
emissions could have irreversible consequences in damaging the ecosystem and life
on earth. These challenges are alarming and require immediate action to mitigate the
carbon emission rate and to circumvent environmental disasters. Hence, mobilizing
substantial capital flows is required to tackle climate challenges and to institute a
low-carbon economy. A serious global climate change movement requires approxi-
mately US$3.5 trillion every year from the energy sectors from 2020 to 2050 (Naeem
et al., 2021) and approximately US$110 trillion in total to reach the targets set by the
Paris climate change agreement by 2050 (Ferrer et al., 2021). In addition, the chal-
lenges of climate change, greenhouse emissions and global warming have turned the
attention of individual and institutional investors toward financial innovations to pro-
mote a greener global economy and sustainable development. The development of
energy technologies can promote environmental protections and decarbonize the
energy system (Van Hoang et al., 2019). Therefore, GBs and sustainable cryptocurren-
cies are promising innovations and avenues for the massive reallocation of funds.
Since the first green bond was issued in 2017 by the European Investment Bank
(EIB), the GB market has become a rapidly growing segment of the capital markets. The
role of GBs is vital in the fund collections related to environmentally friendly projects to
combat climate change (Baker et al., 2018). It is a fixed-income capital market security
and differs from other fixed-income instruments due to its environmental protections
and sustainable features. The scope of GB is wider. A majority of the GBs issued between
2010 and 2019 were related to renewable energy, energy efficiency, clean transportation,
green buildings, pollution prevention and control. According to the International Capital
Market Association, the global bond market reached US$128.3 trillion in August 2020
and the GB market increased from US$11 billion in 2011 to US$349.1 in June 2020
(Naeem et al., 2021). However, the GB market accounts for less than 5% of the total
bond market and is still in its infancy (Naeem et al., 2021). A huge potential avenue for
future growth has spotlighted the GB market, and investors (individual and institutional)
foresee GB as a sustainable risk management tool in finance and economics (Haq et al.,
2021; Huynh et al., 2020;Leetal.,2021;Liuetal.,2021;Nguyenetal.,2021;Pham,
2021; Reboredo, 2018; Reboredo & Ugolini, 2020; Reboredo et al., 2020; Saeed et al.,
2020). Thus, it is of interest to investigate the GB market to validate the sustainable
development impact and risk management possibilities in the current market.
Sustainable cryptocurrency is an emerging buzzword in modern sustainable
finance. Sustainable cryptocurrencies and eco-friendly crypto options have received
enormous attention since Elon Musk (chief executive of Tesla) announced that they
are not going to accept Bitcoin as payment for electric vehicles. Bitcoin has a severe
impact on carbon emissions and sustainability. The mining process of conventional
cryptocurrencies involves high-powered computer systems, huge electricity require-
ments to run algorithms, and uses nonrenewable resources such as coal and fossil
fuels. In addition, these nonrenewable resources produce the worst consequences for
the environment and carbon footprints. The SolarCoin (SLR) generates 1 SolarCoin
for each megawatt hour by employing solar technology. The BitGreen (BITG) mining
process involves a low-energy proof of stake algorithm to ensure eco-friendly actions.
The cryptocurrency network utilizes a minimal power of 6 GWh only for Cardano
(ADA), and it is more energy efficient than Bitcoin. ADA was introduced by the co-
founder of Ethereum. Moreover, Steller (XLM) has its own consensus protocol (SCP).
Due to its personal SCP, the authentication cycle becomes shorter, which makes it an
energy-efficient and low-cost crypto asset. However, Ripple (XRP) uses an algorithm
called the Ripple protocol consensus algorithm (RPCA). Therefore, RPCA provides a
low cost and a secure rapid transaction speed.
The mining processes of sustainable
cryptocurrencies are reliant on sustainable and environmentally beneficial systems.
Therefore, the idea to create sustainable cryptocurrencies seems plausible, and the
future of modern sustainable finance and the cryptocurrency market lie in sustainable
Our motivations are as follows: First, participants in cryptocurrency and sustain-
able financial markets have heterogeneous investment horizons (e.g., amateur traders
versus informed long-term institutional investors) and investment objectives (conven-
tional (black) versus green investors) (Broadstock & Cheng, 2019), which not only
requires a differentiation between social returns and financial returns (Lucey et al.,
2021) due to environmental consequences (Y. Wang et al., 2022) but also the applica-
tion of a wavelet-based approach to make inferences in a timefrequency setting
(Bouri et al., 2020). Second, the academic hedging literature highlights potential dif-
ferences between conventional cryptocurrencies (e.g., Bitcoin and Ethereum) (Haq
et al., 2021; Koumba et al., 2020; Rubbaniy et al., 2021). In addition, the hedging and
diversifier roles of Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies have increased in the last five
years (Haq et al., 2021); however, the hedge and diversifier role of GB with sustain-
able cryptocurrencies remains overlooked. Thus, the current research seeks to answer
two questions: Are GBs and sustainable cryptocurrencies truly sustainable? Does GB
act as a hedge or a diversifier for sustainable cryptocurrencies and Bitcoin? In add-
ition, in exploring these questions, we explore the leading and lagging roles of all
asset classes.
The current research contributes to the inclusive body of the literature in a few
ways. First, to the best of our knowledge, this is the first study to investigate the co-
movement among GB, sustainable cryptocurrencies, Bitcoin, DJSWI and DJSEMI
returns over the short and long run. Second, it contributes to the hedge and diversi-
fier literature (Arif et al., 2021; Hung, 2021; Le et al., 2021; Maltais & Nykvist, 2020;
Naeem et al., 2022; Naeem et al., 2021; Nguyen et al., 2021; Reboredo et al., 2020).
Third, it adds knowledge to the current debate concerning the negative consequences
of the accelerating Bitcoin mining practices (Naeem & Karim, 2021). Finally, it
prompts an inquiry of whether GBs and sustainable cryptocurrency are truly sustain-
able and improves sustainability around the globe.
Using a partial wavelet coherence framework, our empirical analysis presents five
significant outcomes. First, it finds that GB is positively correlated (in-phase) with the
DJSWI and DJSEMI, where the GB market leads the DJSWI and DJSEMI (lagging).
Second, it reveals the financial impact of COVID-19 by considering COVID-19 epi-
sode data, where GB is positively correlated (in-phase) with DJSWI and DJSEMI and
GB is leading the other two sustainability indices. Third, it adds knowledge to the
inclusive debate about sustainable cryptocurrencies. The top five sustainable crypto-
currencies do not present any pronounced strong positive (in-phase) correlation with
GB. Thus, GBs act as diversifiers for sustainable cryptocurrencies or weak hedge.
Fourth, it notices a positive (in-phase) relationship between sustainable cryptocurren-
cies and DJSWI. It reveals a negative impact of increasing returns on the DJSWI in
the long run. The outputs show evidence of a moderate positive co-movement of
Bitcoin and GB returns.
The rest of this article unfolds as follows. Section 2 provides an overview of the
related literature. Section 3 describes the methods employed, and Section 4 presents
the data and an empirical analysis. Finally, Section 5 concludes this article and sug-
gests future research avenues.
2. Review of related studies
The earlier academic literature is divided into several parts, GB premium and yields,
volatility comparison, benefits of GB, price efficiency dynamics, and co-movements
between GB and conventional assets.
Many previous studies have focused on the yield and premium of GB (Ferrer
et al., 2021). Overall, researchers have found mixed GB outcomes. Previous studies
reported a positive GB premium, suggesting that GBs have the option to earn finan-
cial gains (Gianfrate & Peri, 2019; Zerbib, 2019). However, the premium of GBs
reported a negative moderate; hence, investors have to scarify the returns in the
name of the sustainability and environmental protection characteristics of GBs
(Bachelet et al., 2019). The recent literature has captured a wide picture of the pre-
mium and yields avenues (MacAskill et al., 2020). In short, the discussion of the GB
premium is still inclusive (Ferrer et al., 2021).
From another perspective, volatility comparisons and spillovers between GBs and
other fixed income asset markets have been studied earlier. Similarly, Pham (2016)
investigated the relationship between GB and standard fixed income markets, finding
a strong spillover risk between GBs and conventional fixed-come markets. Moreover,
volatility clustering is much stronger in green markets than in standard fixed income
markets. Another study by Broadstock and Cheng (2019) documented that the rela-
tionship between U.S. GBs and standard bonds is sensitive, where crude oil, news-
based risk proxies and economic conditions predict the association between both
markets. Recently, the connectedness between GB and equity markets was investi-
gated by Park et al. (2020), who reported the existence of volatility spillovers using a
multivariate GARCH model. A similar nature of research was conducted from the
Chinese perspective (Gao et al., 2021) but reported an insignificant spillover between
GBs and the equity market in China.
Another relevant body of the literature explores the benefits of GB issuance, not from
the issuer and investor perspective but for national benefit (Naeem et al., 2021). The
announcements about GB issuance increased the shareholders return (Lautsi, 2019)and
stock prices positively pinned with the announcement of GB issuance (Tang & Zhang,
2020). Likewise, the issuance of GBs adds value to Chinese shareholders (J. Wang et al.,
2020). In addition, the announcement of GB environmental issuances (Flammer, 2020)
as well as the financial performance of firms and the funding cost to climate change is
another compelling advantage of GBs (Flaherty et al., 2017). Similarly, GBs proved to be
a potential avenue to achieve sustainable development goals (Banga, 2019).
One additional area of research is price efficiency dynamics. Until lately, only lim-
ited studies have examined the multifractal features (Naeem et al., 2021). They con-
clude that the GB market is highly efficient and reacts more efficiently in black swan
events or periods of higher uncertainty, such as COVID-19. In contrast, a lack of effi-
ciency was found in green and other bonds (Karginova-Gubinova et al., 2020).
Furthermore, Karginova-Gubinova et al. (2020) suggested that the GB market is yet
immature; hence, institutional and regulatory changes should be made to improve
efficiency in Russian settings.
Several studies have investigated the co-movements and dependencies between
GBs and other asset classes or financial markets (Huynh et al., 2020; Le et al., 2021;
Liu et al., 2021; Nguyen et al., 2021; Pham, 2021; Reboredo, 2018; Reboredo &
Ugolini, 2020; Reboredo et al., 2020; Saeed et al., 2020). In an earlier contribution,
the dependencies were gauged by Reboredo (2018) between GB, conventional bonds
and fixed-income, energy and equity markets. They found that the GB market is co-
integrated with other corporate bonds using the bivariate. However, the GB prices
positively but not perfectly co-move with energy and stock markets. Therefore, ample
diversification potential exists in the GB market. In a similar domain, Reboredo and
Ugolini (2020) studied the price transmissions of several financial markets and the
GB market. Using a VAR (vector autoregressive) model, they concluded that the GB
market is more cointegrated with the U.S. currency markets and government bonds.
Similarly, another study by Reboredo et al. (2020) investigated network connected-
ness, where the number of asset classes and the GB market were studied over mul-
tiple investment horizons in the U.S. and European Union. Another recent study by
Liu et al. (2021) investigated the dynamic dependency structure between GB and glo-
bal energy clean energy markets using a copula approach alongside a conditional
value at risk model. The outputs reported a positive time-varying dependence.
Another promising area is focusing on the dynamic linkage between GBs and
other financial markets considering the unprecedented global episode of COVID-19
(Shahzad et al., 2021). For instance, Haq et al. (2021) investigated the dynamic condi-
tional correlation between GB, rare earth metals, clean energy stocks and the eco-
nomic policy uncertainty (EPU) index during the COVID-19 pandemic. They found
that the GB acted more as a hedge than a safe haven during the pandemic for EPU
but as a diversifier for other asset classes, such as clean energy stocks and rare earth
metals. In contrast, Gupta et al. (2021) have studied the impact of financial
uncertainty (news-based index) on U.S. interest rates (term structure). They con-
cluded that U.S. treasury securities proved to be a safe-haven during the pandemic
period. Similarly, Bouri et al. (2021) found the GB market to be a main transmitter
of volatility during the coronavirus period. They have investigated the connectedness
between bonds, currencies, crude oil, equities and gold during the pandemic. A simi-
lar set of asset classes were considered by Arif et al. (2021) to explore the hedging
and safe-haven properties of the GB market.
From the above discussion, we conclude that the body of the literature on diversi-
fication and hedging is advancing tremendously. However, the earlier literature
remains silent on exploring the socially and environmentally sustainable features of
GBs and cryptocurrencies. To the best of our knowledge, no study has investigated
the hedging and sustainability features of sustainable cryptocurrencies. Therefore, this
article seeks to fill the current literature gap in the existing studies.
3. Wavelet coherence
The wavelet coherence approach combines the time and frequency of the time series
in itself. It serves to estimate the association or co-movement between two time series
over time and frequency bands. This research considers the wavelet coherency as
defined by Torrence and Compo (1998) under the smoothing technique in both
domains. Here, there are two time series a(t) and b(t) and the cross-wavelet trans-
forms for them W
(u, s) and W
(u, S). Hence, the cross-wavelet transform can be
written as follows in Equation (1).
In Equation (1),sand uare the scale and position index, respectively. Given any
two time series aand b, a continuous wavelet transform can be written for time
series aand bas Waðu,sÞand W
bðu,sÞ, respectively. A symbol on any series b,
as given in equation W
b, demonstrates a complex conjugate. Hence, a wavelet trans-
form gauges the association between any two time series aand b.
Torrence and Compo (1998) introduced a wavelet coherence approach that was used
to estimate cross-wavelet power. The purpose of the wavelet coherence approach is to
identify a notable covariance between any two times through the cross-wavelet power ser-
ies at each scale. Likewise, the purpose of wavelet coherence is quite similar to the cross-
wavelet power. However, it may not have high wavelet power. Hence, this study followed
theTorrenceandWebster(1999) method to estimate the squared wavelet coherence
between pairs. It is an extension of the Torrence and Compo (1998) method. Therefore,
squared wavelet coherence can be written as follows in Equation (2):
hi (2)
In Equation (2), the smoothing operator is sover time as well as space, and an
inconclusive R2u,s
defines the localized correlation in a squared form over the
time and frequency domains. In addition, the squared correlation coefficient ranges
from 0 R2u,s
1. The value of R2u,s
determines the co-movement between
any two time series, and a higher (lower) value of R2u,s
denotes a higher (lower)
co-movement. However, squared wavelet coherence faces an issue. It remains unable
to differentiate between positive or negative associations and is thus limited to cap-
turing co-movements from 0 to 1 only. Ultimately, Torrence and Compo (1998)
developed a solution to resolve this issue and recommended using the phase differ-
ence. The core purpose of phase difference is detecting different directions (positive/
negative) of co-movements between pairs. Hence, the phase difference can be written
as follows in Equation (3):
tan1lm S s1Wa,bðu,sÞ
Re S s1Wa,bðu,sÞ
Figure 1. First difference return series.
Source: Authorsestimations.
In Equation (3),lm expresses the imaginary smoothed part and Re expresses the
real part of the smoothed cross-wavelet transform.
Generally, the analysis of a cross-wavelet coherence estimation produces a figure. The
colourful figure has five key chunks (see Figures 25), colours from red to blue (warm and
cold colours), uniquely directed eight arrows in the black colour
,!,",#,&,%,.,-ðÞ, black contours, a cone of influence and two
axes (x-axis and y-axis). The (arrows indicate an out-of-phase (in-phase) association
between two time series or a negative (positive) correlation direction. Moreover, .)
denotes that the first time series variable leads the second time series. For example, the -
arrow in the figure (see Figures 25) denotes a negative correlation or out-of-phase associ-
ation between any two series aand bunder the leading effect of any first-time series a.
In contrast, &has the reverse explanation. Generally, a zero phase difference indicates that
both time series aand bmove in inhomogeneous directions. Black coloured curves in
Figures (25) show the black contours. These black contours indicate that the results
(coherence regions) are statistically significant at a significance level of 0.05 (5%), and an
ultimate u-shaped white solid line is the cone of influence in Figures (25).
4. Data descriptions and an empirical analysis
4.1. Data description
The research follows daily values (five days a week) for all variables. The sample
period for S&P GB, DJSWI, and DJSEMI is 1 September 2012 to 9 September 2021.
The sample period for the five sustainable cryptocurrencies SolarCoin, BitGreen,
Cardano, Steller and Ripple commence from different starting points due the latest
inception on 29 March 2014, 22 March 2018, 1 October 2017, 5 August 2014, 4
Figure 2. Wavelet coherence among green bond, sustainability world index and sustainability
emerging market index.
Note: The figure indicates the wavelet coherency plot among the Green bond, Sustainability World Index and
Sustainability Emerging Market Index where the horizontal axis presents the time in days. The vertical axis depicts the
period (frequency) classified in 4, 8, 16, 32, 64, 128 and 256 days). The correlation (coherency band) is flaunted on
the right side of the figure in blue (0.0) to red (1.0) colours indicating the correlation range and the highest and low-
est correlation value (R
). The cone of influence is displayed in a curved solid white colour. Black-coloured contours at
different spots demonstrate the significance of the results at the 0.05 (5%) level. The arrows signal the phase differen-
ces, where forward arrows (!) are in the phase (positive relationship) connectedness and vice versa. Upward arrows
(") indicate that the first time series is leading the other (lagging) and vice versa. Forward upward and downward
arrows (&,%) denotes a phase (positive relationship) and the first time series is leading other (lagging) and (.,-)
vice versa.
Source: Authorsestimations and drawing.
August 2013 to 9 September 2021, respectively. In addition, the dataset covers the
data for Bitcoin from 1 January 2014 to 9 September 2021. First, (1
) difference daily
values are calculated for wavelet coherence analysis. The studied cryptocurrencies are
the top five sustainable cryptocurrencies
and the largest capped cryptocurrency,
Bitcoin. The data for GB, DJSWI and DJSEMI are given according to the available
cryptocurrency data. The data for cryptocurrencies (GB, DJSWI and DJSEMI) were
sourced from (
4.2. Basic statistics
The descriptive statistics for the level series and first difference are illustrated in
Table 1. The statistics in Table 2 show that all-time series positive means, except
Figure 3. Wavelet coherence of sustainable cryptocurrencies and the world sustainability index.
The figure indicates the wavelet coherency plot between sustainable cryptocurrencies and world sustainability index.
Refer Figure 1 for interpretations of the wavelet coherence output.
Source: Authors estimations and drawing.
BITG. Bitcoins is the most volatile cryptocurrency with a standard deviation of
755.947; however, BITG is more volatile among the sustainable cryptocurrencies with
a standard deviation of 0.187. Interestingly, the DJSEMI proves more volatile than
the DJSWI, which obviates the fact that emerging markets are more volatile. All first
difference series are leptokurtic, indicating the presence of higher tail risks. The coef-
ficients of JarqueBera validates that all first difference series are non-normally dis-
tributed. (Table 3)
Figure A.1 (see Appendix A) and Figure 1 depict the level series and first differ-
ence return series, respectively, for all indices. Figure 1 delineates the presence of
momentous growth in GB, sustainability indices, and sustainable cryptocurrencies
except SLR and BITG. In addition, it also depicts the huge price appreciation in
Bitcoins, ADA, XLM and XRP since COVID-19 (December 2019).
Figure 4. Wavelet coherence of green bonds and cryptocurrencies.
Figure indicates the wavelet coherency plot between Green bonds and cryptocurrencies. Refer Figure 1 for interpreta-
tions of wavelet coherence output.
Source: Authorsestimations and drawing.
4.3. Wavelet coherence
Current research investigates the co-movement of sustainable cryptocurrencies with
GB and DJSWI using the wavelet coherence approach by Torrence and Webster
(1999). In addition, it captures the relationship (co-movements) between GB and sus-
tainability indices for world and emerging markets in the full sample and during the
COVID-19 period. The leading and lagging relationship is estimated by using the in-
phase and out-phase arrows in the wavelet coherence. The scale is divided into four
levels: 14 days, 48 days, 816 days, 1632 days, 3264 days, 64128 days,
128256 days and scales above 256 days.
Figure 2 displays the outcomes of wavelet coherence for the GB, DJSWI and the
DJSEMI considering the full sample estimation. Subfigure 2a shows that the right-
directed upward and downward arrows (&,%) indicate an in-phase relationship
(positive correlation) between GB and DJSWI from 2012 to 2014 and 2017 to 2021
on all scales. The subfigure further validates that GB is leading DJSWI. The black
contours on the left and right sides at multiple scales show a positive co-movement
at the 5% significance level. The results indicate that regardless of the hedge and
diversifier, GB increased world sustainability. In addition, Subfigure 2 b shows a
homogeneous co-movement to Subfigure 2a. However, the black contours indicate
that a positive correlation (in-phase) between GB and DJSEMI is more pronounced
in 2012 to 2013 and 2016 to 2021 at all scales. The outcome indicates that GBs are
not the only source of increasing world sustainability and sustainability in emerg-
ing markets.
In sum, the findings show a strong positive co-movement over short- and long-
term investment horizons between GB and sustainability indices (DJSWI and
DJSEMI). Moreover, GBs have a leading role in increasing the sustainability of the
world and emerging markets. Therefore, GB is not only a suitable risk management
tool but also positively associated with sustainability indices. It is evidence for the
idea that GBs are sustainable for the environment and key financial market partici-
pants (Ferrer et al., 2021). Additionally, the GB demonstrated an even stronger asso-
ciation and impact on sustainability during the unprecedented COVID-19 period
than in the full sample estimation. The current findings fill several research gaps
Figure 5. Wavelet coherence of Bitcoin, green bonds and world sustainability index.
The figure indicates the wavelet coherency plot between Bitcoin, green bonds and the world sustainability index.
Refer Figure 1 for interpretations of wavelet coherence output.
Source: Authorsestimations and drawing.
highlighted in previous research (Broadstock & Cheng, 2019; Haq et al., 2021) and
demonstrate the significant utility of GBs in terms of social and financial returns. The
current results establish GB as a sustainable investment for global investors and
investors from emerging markets to build a greener economy, as emphasized in ear-
lier research (Arif et al., 2021; Ferrer et al., 2021; Naeem et al., 2021; Naeem et al.,
2021) GBs are similar to conventional bonds, but they mainly focus on green and
sustainable projects that are thus friendly to the environment (Saeed et al., 2020).
Current findings disagree with Maltais and Nykvist (2020), who argued that GBs
have a false image of being more sustainable or impactful toward the environment
than other municipal and corporate bonds.
Figure 3 depicts the outcomes of the wavelet coherency between the top five sus-
tainable cryptocurrencies and DJSWI. The right-directed arrows in the middle of
Subfigure 3a from 2019 to 2020 show a positive relationship or co-movement (in-
phase) between ADA and DJSWI on 1632-day and 3264-day scales. They also indi-
cate that ADA is leading the DJSWI. Black contours in the subfigure validate that
positive co-movements are significant at the 5% significance level. Backward arrows
on the left side, middle and right side on the 64-day scale in Subfigure 3 b show a
marginally positive correlation (out of the phase) between BITG and DJSWI in the
short term (1632-day and 3264-day scales). Although several black contours show
a zero phase difference at the 5% significance level, the relationship is not pro-
nounced through multiple scales and time periods. Subfigure 3c and Subfigure 3e
show a homogenous co-movement pattern, where both SLR and XRP show a positive
relationship (in-phase) co-movement with DJWSI. The right-directed arrows
(!,&,%) at the bottom, left and right side at 16 days, 64 days and ahead of the 256-
day scale confirm the position relationship, and the black contours validate that the
outcomes are significant at the 5% significance level. In addition, the right-directed
arrows confirm that SLR and XRP lead the DJWSI in the short and long term.
Subfigure 3d shows a positive relationship (in-phase) between XLM and DJWSI on
16-day and 64-day scales from 2017 to 2019. Right directed arrows (!,&,%) con-
firm the positive association, where black contours show results that are significant at
the 5% significance level. These findings indicate that sustainable cryptocurrencies
increased the DJSWI, except for BITG. The relationship between sustainable
Table 1. Descriptive statistics.
Mean Std. Dev. Skewness Kurtosis JarqueBera Probability Observations
DJSEMI 0.152 9.618 0.682 7.898 2502.560.000 2323
DJSWI 0.487 12.128 1.469 21.705 34699.040.000 2323
GB 0.008 0.419 0.702 9.858 4742.9620.000 2323
ADA 0.000 0.093 16.45 434.175 79940200.000 1025
BTC 22.089 755.947 0.706 31.677 68596.070.000 1997
BITG 0.005 0.187 1.677 46.270 71026.670.000 904
SLR 0.000 0.037 16.032 583.876 272871040.000 1934
XLM 0.000 0.020 0.291 101.067 739747.20.000 1845
XRP 0.000 0.054 2.198 125.371 13150860.000 2104
Note: The table reports the descriptive statistics of the differenced return of closing prices. denotes the rejection
of the null hypothesis at the 1% significance level. Dow Jones Sustainability Emerging Market Index (DJSEMI). Dow
Jones Sustainability World Index (DJSWI), S&P Green Bonds (GB), Cardano (ADA), Bitcoin (BTC), BitGreen (BITG),
SolarCoin (SLR), Stellar (XLM), and Ripple (XRP).
Source: Authorsestimations.
cryptocurrencies and DJSWI remains low in most cases, but several red, light red and
yellow spots with black borders show a significant relationship on different scales.
In summary, the outputs show mixed co-movement patterns between sustainable
cryptocurrencies and DJSWI. The dynamic co-movement over different investment
horizons and time periods supports the idea that sustainable cryptocurrencies were
prompted as a source of increasing global sustainability. Sustainable cryptocurrencies
(SLR and XRP) have strong long-term co-movements, and BITG, SLR and XRP co-
move positively with DJSWI on 1632-day and 3264-day scales, particularly in 2021
and 2013, respectively. XLM and ADA also have a short-term co-movement with
DJSWI on 1632-day and 3264-day scales; moreover, XLM also has a long-term
Overall, all selected sustainable cryptocurrencies have strong positive co-movement
in the short run. Only two sustainable cryptocurrencies (SLR and XRP) co-move (in-
phase) with DJSWI in the long run (ahead of a 256-day scale). These outcomes
answer the difficult question raised by Arps (2018) that cannot be answered by inves-
ting in the role of sustainable cryptocurrencies in terms of global and social sustain-
ability. These results are novel because no study has investigated the co-movement
between sustainable cryptocurrencies and DJSWI through the wavelet coher-
ence approach.
Figure 4 shows the wavelet coherency between GB and the top five sustainable
cryptocurrencies (ADA, BITG, SLR, XLM and XRP). Subgroup 4a demonstrates
wavelet coherence between GB and ADA. The black contours at the lower left corner
Table 2. PhilipsPerron test of unit root (1st difference returns).
Index t-statistics P value
BTC 46.6850.000
BITG 27.4970.000
XLM 40.8540.000
SLR 51.0450.000
ADA 35.8690.000
XRP 34.0450.000
GB 42.2370.000
DJSWI 43.9410.000
DJSEMI 38.7930.000
Note: The table represents the results of the unit root test. denotes the rejection of the null hypothesis at the 1%
significance level. Refer Table 1 for abbreviations.
Source: Authorsestimations.
Table 3. Portmanteau (Q) test for serial correlation.
Index t-statistics Probability
BTC 214.19090.000
BITG 225.80320.000
XLM 162.77550.000
SLR 448.67060.000
ADA 111.93780.000
XRP 459.67990.000
GB 75.7123 0.006
DJSWI 203.61130.000
DJSEMI 100.68100.000
Note: The table reports results for the Ljung-Box statistics of autocorrelation of t returns for serial correlation. ()
denotes the rejection of the null hypothesis at the 1% (10%) significance level. Refer Table 1 for abbreviations.
Source: Authorsestimations.
show a positive co-movement between GB and ADA, where GB leads the ADA price.
Several other spots highlighted in yellow and light-red confirm moderate co-move-
ment at the 5% significance level. However, several backward arrows (.) ahead of
the 256 scale demonstrate a negative co-movement (out-phase) during the COVID-19
period. Subfigure 4 b also portrays backward arrows (.,-) where BITG is leading the
GB. In contrast, the forward arrows in the middle indicate a positive co-movement (in-
phase). More areas are shown in blue, which indicates a low co-movement between the
GB and BITG. Subfigure 5c demonstrates several black contours filled with a light-red
colour, which show a co-movement between GB and SLR; however, most of the area
remains blue except a few backward and downward ( ,#), indicating a negative co-
movement (in-phase). In Subfigure 4d, the right upward directed arrows (%) indicate
that GB and XLM have a positive relationship or co-movement (in-phase) ahead of the
256 scale and that GB leads XLM returns in the long run. In addition, several other
black contours filled with the light-red colour validate the moderate co-movement at a
5% significance. Black contours filled with light-red and yellow colours show a moder-
ate co-movement in Subfigure 4e on different scales. There is no phase; thus, both series
are moving in the same direction, and the series is now leading or lagging. All these
findings demonstrate that GB acts as a diversifier with sustainable cryptocurrencies
because the GB showed a moderate co-movement or correlation but not a perfect cor-
relation except with SLR and ADA. ADA and SLR showed few moderate negative co-
movements in the long run; therefore, GB evidenced hedging properties for ADA and
SLR. In summary, the pronounced blue colour in all subfigures indicates that GB and
sustainable cryptocurrencies have a weak or no co-movement; therefore, GB acts as a
weak hedge against sustainable cryptocurrencies.
Overall, our results reveal a positive moderate and weak co-movement between GB
and sustainable cryptocurrencies on short-term investment horizons (14-day, 416-
day and 1664-day scales), except SLR, where it negatively co-moves with GB from
2017 to 2018 and from mid-2020 to 2021. Therefore, GB acts as a hedge for the SLR
64128-day and 128256-day scales for SLR, and previous studies found GB to be a
hedge (Arif et al., 2021; Naeem et al., 2021; Naeem et al., 2021). The light red colour
shows a moderate correlation (but not perfect), and the blue colour indicates no co-
movement; therefore, GB acts as a diversifier in the short-term investment horizon
and as a weak hedge where no correlation exists (blue colour). These findings par-
tially match previous research by Haq et al. (2021).
Figure 5 captures the wavelet coherence output of Bitcoin with GB and DJSWI.
Black contours are present in Subfigure 5a, and most of them are light red and yel-
low. A black contour in light red with right-directed arrows (&) on the 3264-day
scale during 2020 indicates that GB and Bitcoin returns have positive (in-phase) co-
movements during 2020. However, Figure 5b shows several light-red and yellow con-
tours outlined in black validate a moderate data co-movement during the entire sam-
ple period. These findings show that GBs act as diversifiers of Bitcoin. Interestingly,
the left-directed arrows (.) in the right bottom corner above the 256-day scale show
a negative relationship or co-movement (out of phase). These arrows also confirm
that the DJSWI is leading, and Bitcoin is lagging. The black contour on the subfigure
validates the results at the 5% significance level. Current output shows that world
sustainability and Bitcoin have a negative relationship, indicating that price increases
for Bitcoin decrease sustainability.
In summary, our results express a moderate co-movement between GB and
Bitcoin in the long-term investment horizon (ahead of the 256-day scale) from 2020
to 2021 and a strong positive leading impact on Bitcoin returns in the short-term
investment horizon in 2020. The moderate co-movement suggests that diversification
avenues exist between Bitcoin and GBs in the long-term investment horizon; how-
ever, there is no significant correlation in the short-term investment horizon. This
may be due to the long-term investment nature of the GB asset class (Haq et al.,
2021). Interestingly, the wavelet coherency showed a strong-negative co-movement
between Bitcoin returns and DJSWI in the long-term investment horizon (ahead of a
256-day scale). Additionally, this co-movement remained strong at the 416-day and
1664-day scales from 2016 and 2020 to 2021. These findings suggest that the
increasing Bitcoin value and returns have a negative impact on world sustainability.
This outcome is consistent with previous studies (De Vries, 2018; Li et al., 2019),
where they found that increased Bitcoin is harmful for sustainability due to high
energy consumption and carbon emissions around the globe (Gallersd
orfer et al.,
2020; Onat et al., 2021). Recently, Elon Musk also announced that Tesla will no lon-
ger accept Bitcoin because Bitcoins are using massive amounts of fossil fuel for trans-
actions and mining. Although cryptocurrencies have a promising future, they produce
severe negative externalities to sustainable ecosystems and greener global economies.
5. Concluding remarks
This article investigates the co-movement among GB, DJSWI and Dow Jones sustain-
ability emerging markets indices. In addition, this study investigates the co-movement
among five sustainable cryptocurrencies, Bitcoin and DJSWI. The wavelet coherence
approach captures co-movements over multiple scales and time. The main results
reveal several conclusions. First, we find a strong positive co-movement of GB with
both indices, i.e., DJSWIDJSWI and DJSEMI. Generally, the wavelet coherence shows
strong co-movement over the short and long run among GB, DJSWI and DJSEMI. In
addition, GB returns lead both sustainability indices over short- and long-term invest-
ment horizons. This indicates that GBs are sources of increasing global sustainability
as well as increasing sustainability in emerging markets. Second, sustainable crypto-
currencies and DJSWI show strong but heterogeneous co-movement in both short-
term and long-term horizons, except for BITG. Institutional investors, speculators,
Bitcoin accepting companies and other market participants accelerate the use and
investment of sustainable cryptocurrencies other than Bitcoin, as sustainable crypto-
currencies to ensure a sustainable global environment and achieve sustainable devel-
opment goals. Third, the co-movements of the GB remain heterogeneous and
intermittent with the top five sustainable cryptocurrencies, i.e., SLR, BITG, ADA,
XLM and XRP, over the short and long run, indicating diversification benefits for GB
for sustainable cryptocurrencies (except for SLR) due to the internal short- and long-
term wavelet coherence. GB is more like a diversifier with ADA in the short run and
a hedge in the long run and a diversifier with XRP in the short run and a hedge for
SLR on the 64128-day scale (short-term). In addition, wavelet coherence presents a
strong positive co-movement between GB and Bitcoin in short horizons up to the 64-
day scale from 2018 to 2021 but with a moderate co-movement (correlation) but it is
not perfectly positive, suggesting that GB acts as a diversifier with Bitcoin in the
long-term investment horizon from 2018 to 2021 (COVID-19). Moreover, a strong
negative relationship between Bitcoin and DJSWI in the long run alone shows an
unstable strong negative relationship in the short run, suggesting that increasing
Bitcoin returns are deteriorating world sustainability.
Our findings offer several key policy implications for crypto traders, green invest-
ors, and sustainability stakeholders in terms of hedging strategies and sustainability
policy. First, green investors and sustainability stakeholders need to understand that
it is perfectly possible to fight against climate change through investment in GBs and
sustainable cryptocurrencies to promote a sustainable global economy. Moreover, pol-
icy-makers should look into the role of sustainable cryptocurrencies and deploy poli-
cies in support of developing systems for sustainable cryptocurrencies. Second,
Bitcoin is a serious detriment to the worlds sustainability, which should compel
major improvements to the mining process. Hence, the mining process must refrain
from worsening global sustainability to ensure a greener global economy. Third, aside
from environmental and social benefits, GBs appear to be a potential diversification
avenue against sustainable cryptocurrencies for green, conventional, amateur crypto
traders and informed long-term institutions. However, GB and sustainable cryptocur-
rencies do not offer significant hedging benefits for sustainability investors (emerging
and global) and sustainable crypto traders (except SLR) in the short- and long-run
investment horizons. Fourth, despite the adverse role of Bitcoin toward sustainability,
Bitcoin proves to be a hedge against DJSWI, suggesting that crypto traders can earn
hedging benefits when considering Bitcoin against the DJSWI in the long-term invest-
ment horizon. In summary, beyond the diversification and hedging gains, these sus-
tainable financial assets can help mitigate the climate change crisis and meet the
rising demand for environmentally and socially responsible investments.
This research was conducted while the COVID-19 pandemic was not yet over. In
addition, it is not exclusively based on a COVID-19 event-specific dataset. Moreover,
the time period significantly differs for cryptos due to different inception times and
data availability. Hence, future research should explore the safe-haven properties of
GBs and sustainable cryptocurrencies using the same time spans. We suggest investi-
gating the price efficiency and inefficiency of sustainable cryptocurrencies. In add-
ition, direct portfolio implications, such as hedging effectiveness should be
considered. Sustainable cryptocurrencies are understudied; hence, they provide ample
research opportunities to academicians, young scholars and students.
2. See for more details;
3. See the list of sustainable cryptos;
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.
Inzamam Ul Haq
Apichit Maneengam
Supat Chupradit
Chunhui Huo
Arif, M., Naeem, M. A., Farid, S., Nepal, R., & Jamasb, T. (2021). Diversifier or more? Hedge
and safe haven properties of green bonds during COVID-19.
Arps, J.-P. (2018). Understanding Cryptocurrencies from a Sustainable Perspective:
Investigating cryptocurrencies by developing and applying an integrated sustainability
framework (unpublished masters thesis). J
oping International Business School. Digitala
Vetenskapliga Arkivet.
Bachelet, M. J., Becchetti, L., & Manfredonia, S. (2019). The green bonds premium puzzle: The
role of issuer characteristics and third-party verification. Sustainability,11(4), 1098. https://
Baker, M., Bergstresser, D., Serafeim, G., & Wurgler, J. (2018). Financing the response to cli-
mate change: The pricing and ownership of US green bonds. National Bureau of Economic
Research, Inc (NBER) Working Paper No. 25194.
Banga, J. (2019). The green bond market: a potential source of climate finance for developing
countries. Journal of Sustainable Finance & Investment,9(1), 1732.
Bouri, E., Cepni, O., Gabauer, D., & Gupta, R. (2021). Return connectedness across asset
classes around the COVID-19 outbreak. International Review of Financial Analysis,73,
Bouri, E., Shahzad, S. J. H., Roubaud, D., Kristoufek, L., & Lucey, B. (2020). Bitcoin, gold, and
commodities as safe havens for stocks: New insight through wavelet analysis. The Quarterly
Review of Economics and Finance,77, 156164.
Broadstock, D. C., & Cheng, L. T. (2019). Time-varying relation between black and green
bond price benchmarks: Macroeconomic determinants for the first decade. Finance Research
de Oliveira, E. M., de Souza Cunha, F. A. F., Palazzi, R. B., Klotzle, M. C., & Mac¸aira, P. M.
(2020). On the effects of uncertainty measures on sustainability indices: An empirical inves-
tigation in a nonlinear framework. International Review of Financial Analysis,70, 101505.
De Vries, A. (2018). Bitcoins growing energy problem. Joule,2(5), 801805.
Ferrer, R., Shahzad, S. J. H., & Soriano, P. (2021). Are green bonds a different asset class?
Evidence from time-frequency connectedness analysis. Journal of Cleaner Production,292,
Flaherty, M., Gevorkyan, A., Radpour, S., & Semmler, W. (2017). Financing climate policies
through climate bondsA three stage model and empirics. Research in International Business
and Finance,42, 468479.
Flammer, C. (2020). Green bonds: effectiveness and implications for public policy.
Environmental and Energy Policy and the Economy,1(1), 95128.
orfer, U., Klaaßen, L., & Stoll, C. (2020). Energy consumption of cryptocurrencies
beyond bitcoin. Joule,4(9), 18431846.
Gao, Y., Li, Y., & Wang, Y. (2021). Risk spillover and network connectedness analysis of
Chinas green bond and financial markets: Evidence from financial events of 20152020.
The North American Journal of Economics and Finance,57, 101386.
Gianfrate, G., & Peri, M. (2019). The green advantage: Exploring the convenience of issuing
green bonds. Journal of Cleaner Production,219, 127135.
Gupta, R., Subramaniam, S., Bouri, E., & Ji, Q. (2021). Infectious disease-related uncertainty
and the safe-haven characteristic of US treasury securities. International Review of
Economics & Finance,71, 289298.
Haq, I. U., Chupradit, S., & Huo, C. (2021). Do green bonds act as a hedge or a safe haven
against economic policy uncertainty? Evidence from the USA and China. International
Journal of Financial Studies,9(3), 40.
Haq, I. U., Maneengam, A., Chupradit, S., Suksatan, W., & Huo, C. (2021). Economic policy
uncertainty and cryptocurrency market as a risk management avenue: A systematic review.
Risks,9(9), 163.
Hung, N. T. (2021). Nexus between green bonds, financial, and environmental indicators.
Economics and Business Letters,10(3), 191197.
Huynh, T. L. D., Hille, E., & Nasir, M. A. (2020). Diversification in the age of the 4th indus-
trial revolution: The role of artificial intelligence, green bonds and cryptocurrencies.
Technological Forecasting and Social Change,159, 120188.
Karginova-Gubinova, V., Shcherbak, A., & Tishkov, S. (2020). Efficiency of the green bond
market and its role in regional security. E3S Web of Conferences,164, 9040.
Koumba, U., Mudzingiri, C., & Mba, J. (2020). Does uncertainty predict cryptocurrency
returns? A copula-based approach. Macroeconomics and Finance in Emerging Market
Economies,13(1), 6788.
Lautsi, M. (2019). Green bonds and cumulative abnormal return implications for corporations
around green bond announcements.
Le, T.-L., Abakah, E. J. A., & Tiwari, A. K. (2021). Time and frequency domain connectedness
and spill-over among fintech, green bonds and cryptocurrencies in the age of the fourth
industrial revolution. Technological Forecasting and Social Change,162, 120382.
Li, J., Li, N., Peng, J., Cui, H., & Wu, Z. (2019). Energy consumption of cryptocurrency min-
ing: A study of electricity consumption in mining cryptocurrencies. Energy,168, 160168.
Liu, N., Liu, C., Da, B., Zhang, T., & Guan, F. (2021). Dependence and risk spillovers between
green bonds and clean energy markets. Journal of Cleaner Production,279, 123595. https://
Lucey, B. M., Vigne, S. A., Yarovaya, L., & Wang, Y. (2021). The cryptocurrency uncertainty
index. Finance Research Letters,102147
MacAskill, S., Roca, E., Liu, B., Stewart, R., & Sahin, O. (2020). Is there a green premium in
the green bond market? Systematic literature review revealing premium determinants.
Journal of Cleaner Production,124491
Maltais, A., & Nykvist, B. (2020). Understanding the role of green bonds in advancing sustain-
ability. Journal of Sustainable Finance & Investment,120.
Naeem, M. A., Conlon, T., & Cotter, J. (2022). Green bonds and other assets: Evidence from
extreme risk transmission. Journal of Environmental Management,305, 114358.
Naeem, M. A., Farid, S., Ferrer, R., & Shahzad, S. J. H. (2021). Comparative efficiency of green
and conventional bonds pre-and during COVID-19: An asymmetric multifractal detrended
fluctuation analysis. Energy Policy,153, 112285.
Naeem, M. A., & Karim, S. (2021). Tail dependence between bitcoin and green financial assets.
Economics Letters,208, 110068.
Naeem, M. A., Nguyen, T. T. H., Nepal, R., Ngo, Q.-T., & TaghizadehHesary, F. (2021).
Asymmetric relationship between green bonds and commodities: Evidence from extreme
quantile approach. Finance Research Letters,101983
Nguyen, T. T. H., Naeem, M. A., Balli, F., Balli, H. O., & Vo, X. V. (2021). Time-frequency
comovement among green bonds, stocks, commodities, clean energy, and conventional
bonds. Finance Research Letters,40, 101739.
Onat, N., Jabbar, R., Kucukvar, M., & Fetais, N. (2021). Bitcoin and global climate change:
Emissions beyond borders.
Park, D., Park, J., & Ryu, D. (2020). Volatility spillovers between equity and green bond mar-
kets. Sustainability,12(9), 3722.
Pham,L.(2016). Is it risky to go green? A volatility analysis of the green bond market. Journal of
Sustainable Finance & Investment,6(4), 263291.
Pham, L. (2021). Frequency connectedness and cross-quantile dependence between green bond and
green equity markets. Energy Economics,98, 105257.
Reboredo, J. C. (2018). Green bond and financial markets: Co-movement, diversification and price
spillover effects. Energy Economics,74,3850.
Reboredo, J. C., & Ugolini, A. (2020). Price connectedness between green bond and financial
markets. Economic Modelling,88,2538.
Reboredo, J. C., Ugolini, A., & Aiube, F. A. L. (2020). Network connectedness of green bonds
and asset classes. Energy Economics,86, 104629.
Rubbaniy, G., Khalid, A. A., & Samitas, A. (2021). Are cryptos safe-haven assets during Covid-
19? Evidence from wavelet coherence analysis. Emerging Markets Finance and Trade,57(6),
Saeed, T., Bouri, E., & Tran, D. K. (2020). Hedging strategies of green assets against dirty
energy assets. Energies,13(12), 3141.
Shahzad, F., Yannan, D., Kamran, H. W., Suksatan, W., Nik Hashim, N. A. A., & Razzaq, A. (2021).
Outbreak of epidemic diseases and stock returns: an event study of emerging economy. Economic
Research-Ekonomska Istra
Tang, D. Y., & Zhang, Y. (2020). Do shareholders benefit from green bonds? Journal of
Corporate Finance,61, 101427.
Torrence, C., & Compo, G. P. (1998). A practical guide to wavelet analysis. Bulletin of the
American Meteorological Society,79(1), 6178.
Torrence, C., & Webster, P. J. (1999). Interdecadal changes in the ENSOmonsoon system.
Journal of Climate,12(8), 26792690. 10.1175/1520-0442(1999)012<2679:ICITEM>2.0.CO;2
Van Hoang, T. H., Shahzad, S. J. H., Czudaj, R. L., & Bhat, J. A. (2019). How do oil shocks
impact energy consumption? A disaggregated analysis for the US. The Energy Journal,
Wang, J., Chen, X., Li, X., Yu, J., & Zhong, R. (2020). The market reaction to green bond issu-
ance: Evidence from China. Pacific-Basin Finance Journal,60, 101294.
Wang, Y., Lucey, B., Vigne, S. A., & Yarovaya, L. (2022). An index of cryptocurrency environ-
mental attention (ICEA). China Finance Review International,
Xuefeng, Z., Razzaq, A., Gokmenoglu, K. K., & Rehman, F. U. (2021). Time varying inter-
dependency between COVID-19, tourism market, oil prices, and sustainable climate in
United States: Evidence from advance wavelet coherence approach. Economic Research-
Ekonomska Istra
Zerbib, O. D. (2019). The effect of pro-environmental preferences on bond prices: Evidence
from green bonds. Journal of Banking & Finance,98,3960.
Appendix A
Figure A.1. Original data.
Source: Coinmarketcap and S&P Global.
... For instance, Elon Musk, the CEO of Tesla Corporation expressed that traditional cryptocurrency (Bitcoin) consumes large amounts of electricity and fossil fuel and produces a carbon footprint that makes the global environment dirty and unclean, and this could affect investors' trust. Meanwhile, crypto investors are revising their priorities, with an increased preference for sustainable, green or clean cryptocurrencies (Haq and Bouri 2022;Pham et al. 2022;Ren and Lucey 2022a;Ul Haq et al. 2022a). Generally, three well-known cryptocurrencies support energy trades in the renewable energy sector: Powerledger (POWR), GridPlus (GRID+) and SunContract (SNC) (Yousaf et al. 2022). ...
... Generally, three well-known cryptocurrencies support energy trades in the renewable energy sector: Powerledger (POWR), GridPlus (GRID+) and SunContract (SNC) (Yousaf et al. 2022). Additionally, SolarCoin (SLR), Bitcoin Green (BITG), Cardano (ADA), Steller (XLM) and Ripple (XRP) are recognized as committed to sustainability (Haq and Bouri 2022;Ul Haq et al. 2022a). In this research, we study the dynamic multiscale connectedness between economic policy uncertainty, energy and sustainable cryptocurrencies. ...
... Another strand of research investigated the nexus of energy, sustainable cryptocurrencies, and stock markets. For example, Ul Haq et al. (2022a) consider the financial market and sustainability perspectives, studying the co-movement of green bonds, sustainable and traditional cryptocurrencies and major sustainability indices in both time and frequency domains, concluding that green bonds and sustainable cryptocurrencies are sustainable investment and risk management avenues for sustainable crypto traders and investors. Similarly, Pham et al. (2022) analyze the tail dependence between carbon prices and green and non-green cryptocurrencies, using quantile connectedness. ...
Full-text available
The purpose of the research is to explore the dynamic multiscale linkage between economic policy uncertainty, equity market volatility, energy and sustainable cryptocurrencies during the COVID-19 period. We use a multiscale TVP-VAR model considering level (EPUs and IDEMV) and returns series (cryptocurrencies) from 1 December 2019 to 30 September 2022. The data are then decomposed into six wavelet components, based on the wavelet MODWT method. The TVP-VAR connectedness approach is used to uncover the dynamic connectedness among EPUs, energy and sustainable cryptocurrency returns. Our findings reveal that CNEPU (USEPU) is the strongest (weakest) NET volatility transmitter. IDEMV is the most consistent volatility NET transmitter among all uncertainty indices across the original returns and wavelet scales (D1~D6). Energy cryptocurrencies, i.e., GRID, POW and SNC, are more likely to receive volatility spillovers than sustainable cryptocurrencies during a turbulent period (COVID-19). XLM (XNO) is least (most) affected by volatility spillover in system-wide connectedness, and XLM (ADA and MIOTA) showed a consistent (heterogeneous) non-recipient behavior across the six wavelet (D1~D6) scales and original return series. This study uncovers the dynamic connectedness across multiscale, which will support investors considering different investment horizons (D1~D6).
... It has several advantages over several models (Rubbaniy et al., 2021). The major trade-off using wavelet coherence method than other multivariate GARCH model is the ability to capture the co-movement between time series across time and frequency domains Maghyereh, Awartani, & Abdoh, 2019;Ul Haq, Maneengam, Chupradit, & Huo, 2022). Another key benefit is the ability to highlight lead/lag relationship between two series across multiple investment horizons (Rubbaniy et al., 2021). ...
The high energy consumption and carbon footprints have raised environmental and sustainable concerns of green investors and policymakers. This study explores co-movements between three green and socially responsible financial assets, S&P global clean energy index (GCEI), S&P green bonds index (GB), DJ sustainability world index (DJSWI) and four cryptocurrency uncertainty/attention indices cryptocurrency policy uncertainty index (UCRYPI), Central Bank Digital Currencies Uncertainty Index (CBDCUI), Central Bank Digital Currencies Attentions Index (CBDCAI) and Index of Cryptocurrency Environmental Attention (ICEA) using the bivariate wavelet coherence approach. The findings show that GCEI, GB, DJSWI returns have consistent positive co-movement with all cryptocurrency uncertainty/attention indices in the medium-term, suggesting their time-varying leading role. Evidence of negative coherences shows that higher cryptocurrency uncertainties/attentions lead to lower green financial assets returns, reflecting the adverse impact of higher uncertainties/attention on the trust of green and sustainable investors. The above empirical findings offer up-to-date insights for guiding policymakers, and regulators enabling them in environmental policy development. Furthermore, socially responsible investors can make better investment judgments by considering the environmental concerns in the cryptocurrency marketplaces.
... Moreover, [8] conclude that the Bitcoin network consumes as a whole as much energy as a country like Austria or Poland. The role of cryptocurrencies has also been found to be problematic for the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals [6,9]. Ref [10] project that the carbon emissions from the continuous adoption of Bitcoin might increase global warming beyond two degrees Celsius within thirty years. ...
Full-text available
Green cryptocurrencies have been recently created to reduce energy consumption and environmental pollution by adopting alternative mining practices. This paper examines for the first time the market of green cryptocurrencies for indication of herding behavior in the period of January 2017–June 2022. By using two measures that capture the proximity of asset returns from the market consensus, we conclude that herding behavior among investors in green cryptocurrencies was absent in the whole sample. However, the results of a subsample analysis and rolling window regression show that herding dynamics varied significantly throughout the sample period. The recent COVID-19 pandemic amplified the observed levels of herding behavior, suggesting that opportunities for diversification for investors operating in this market may have become more limited lately. For this reason, financial regulators should focus on the market of green cryptocurrencies if they want to promote the market’s efficiency necessary to attract additional investors.
... By considering various conventional and sustainable cryptocurrencies and accounting for the heterogeneity of market participants across scales, we extend previous findings (Hassan, Hasan, and Rashid 2021;Karaömer 2022;Ah Mand 2021;Ren and Lucey 2022a;Ul Haq et al. 2022;) on gold, and conventional and sustainable cryptocurrencies. Accordingly, our contributions concern: (1) the growing literature on the hedging ability of conventional cryptocurrencies and sustainable cryptocurrencies (e.g., Ul ; (2) the ongoing debate on the hedging instruments for cryptocurrency uncertainty indices (e.g., (Hassan, Hasan, and Rashid 2021;Hasan et al. 2022); Karim et al. (2022); Karaömer (2022); Ah Mand (2021) beyond gold, Islamic indices, bond markets and Bitcoin; and (3) inferences in both time and frequency, which are necessary to account for the heterogeneity of investment horizons between the short, medium, and long term Bouri et al. 2020;Rubbaniy, Khalid, and Samitas 2021). ...
Full-text available
Are conventional and sustainable cryptocurrencies effective hedging instruments for high cryptocurrency uncertainty? This paper investigates co-movements between conventional (Bitcoin, Ethereum, Binance Coin, Tether) and sustainable (Cardano, Powerledger, Stellar, Ripple) crypto-currencies and two cryptocurrency uncertainty indices (UCRY price and UCRY policy). Using weekly returns from October 1, 2017 to March 30, 2021, the paper employs the bivariate wavelet coherence method considering three investment horizons, short-term, medium-term, and long-term. Our findings confirm that conventional and sustainable cryptocurrencies show consistent positive and identical co-movements with both cryptocurrency uncertainty indices at the short-term horizon during COVID-19 and negative co-movement at the medium-term investment horizon, suggesting the short-term hedging ability of dirty/green cryptocurrencies for high UCRY price and policy. Evidence of negative coherences shows that higher cryptocurrency prices and policy uncertainties lead to lower cryptocurrency returns, reflecting the adverse impact of higher uncertainties on the trust of crypto traders and investors. Weak connectedness is found between dirty/green crypto-currencies and UCRY price/policy uncertainties, which suggests the possible use of dirty/green cryptocurrencies as a weak hedge for UCRY price and policy uncertainties. These findings provide potential avenues to hedge cryptocurrency uncertainties using conventional and sustainable cryp-tocurrencies across multiple investment horizons.
... Earlier research has studied the theoretical perspective of rare earth elements which demonstrates that previous economic literature on the financial contagion effect of REEs is scarce. The role of financial contagion effect and volatility transmission has been welldeveloped in finance literature, i.e., in financial markets, Pantos et al. 2019;Papathanasiou et al. 2022b;Samitas and Kampouris 2019;Samitas et al. 2022bSamitas et al. , 2022c, cryptocurrency market (Samitas et al. 2020;Ul Haq et al. 2022) and energy and metal markets (Haq et al. 2021b;Mensi et al. 2020). However, rare studies have investigated the financial contagion effects of rare earth and the energy market toward major green financial markets. ...
Full-text available
The high volatility and energy usage of rare earths have raised sustainable and financial concerns for environmentalists and sustainable investors. Therefore, this paper aims to investigate time-varying volatility transmission among rare earths elements, energy commodities, and sustainable financial markets. The sample covers global and major financial markets, i.e., US, China, and Australia. Using daily log returns from 2018 to 2022, the paper considers the dynamic Time Varying Parameter-Vector Autoregression (TVP-VAR) connectedness approach to gauge the time-varying features of volatility spillovers. The findings of total spillovers index reveal weak connectedness among markets during the sampled period. US and China rare earth markets were net volatility transmitters, whereas the Dow Jones Australia Sustainability Index (ASI), China Sustainability Index (CSI), Dow Jones Sustainability World Index (SWI), and MVIS Global Rare Earth Index (MVISGREI) were net recipients. Moreover, energy commodities i.e., WTI Crude Oil, Gasoline, and Natural Gas were net volatility transmitters, while ASI, CSI, and SWI were major volatility recipients. The weak financial contagion effect and connectedness across financial markets uncovers possible diversification opportunities. However, the US sustainable financial market is persistently not affected by these volatility spillovers. Policymakers need to establish strict regulations to protect sustainable financial markets in China and Australia.
... United Nations (UN) has adopted the agenda of 17 sustainable development goals (SDGs) to achieve a sustainable and better future for all Ul Haq et al. 2022). According to sustainable development goal 13, nations must take appropriate actions to combat climate change and its impacts. ...
Full-text available
This study investigates the co-movements between the Solactive Electric Vehicle and Future Mobility Index (EVFMI) and multiple rare earth elements (REEs). We applied a TVP-VAR model and bivariate wavelet coherence approach to capture co-movements both in the time and frequency domain considering short-, medium- and long-term investment horizons. Using daily returns from 1 June 2012 to 4 June 2021, the results of the TVP-VAR model show that individual REEs and the EVFMI have strong return connectedness and are heterogenous over time. The bivariate wavelet coherence approach reveals that Dysprosium, Neodymium, Praseodymium and Terbium returns have positive co-movement (in-phase) with the EVFMI in the medium-term and long-term. In contrast, Cerium, Europium, Lanthanum and Yttrium returns have negative co-movements (out-phase) with the EVFMI in the medium-term and long-term. We find strong positive co-movements between the MVIS Global Rare Earth/Strategic Metals Index (MVREMX) and EVFMI at multiple wavelet scales. Following the lead/lag relationship, Cerium, Europium and Lanthanum, Yttrium returns are leading the EVFMI, and Neodymium, Dysprosium, Praseodymium, Terbium and MVREMX returns are lagging to the EVFMI. This study, therefore, suggests heterogenous hedging and diversification properties of REEs over time and investment horizons. Specifically, Cerium, Europium, Lanthanum and Yttrium act as strong hedges in long-term investment horizons and Neodymium, Dysprosium, Praseodymium and Terbium are weak hedges or diversifiers in short-term investment horizons. These results may be of particular interest to investors and relevant to policymakers considering multiple investment horizons.
This paper examines the time-varying interactive linkages between the sustainable debt market and gas markets, applying unique estimation techniques, specifically the empirical mode decomposition (EMD)-windowed-cross-correlation (EMD-WCC) and wavelet-windowed-cross-correlations. To this end, we use the S&P Green Bond Index as a representative of a sustainable debt market while for the gas market, we use natural gas price indices of UK NBP (National Balancing Point), NYMEX HH (Henry Hub) and US shale gas prices. The lead/lag behavior amid green-bonds along with shale gas, also with natural gas markets has equal forces across all time scales. There exists weak cross-correlation across green bonds and shale gas markets and additionally, green bonds and natural gas markets in the short-run. Such findings imply that, from the perspective of the investors, in the short-run, green bonds have ample diversification benefits. The highest intensity of cross-correlations is observed in the longer time horizons. This evidence suggests that in the long-run the behavior of the markets is driven by its own peculiarities. Overall, our findings support the argument that green bonds with their climate-friendly properties add to the diversification benefits for investors, as a newer class of asset for portfolio investments.
Full-text available
This study attempts to empirically estimate the interdependence between COVID-19, tourism market, oil prices, and sustainable climate in United States. In doing so, we employ an advanced Morlet’s wavelet approach, namely, Wavelet coherence transform (WCT), Partial and Multiple Wavelet Coherence and found a strong co-movement between variables, which is varied across the time scales, indicating the initial, peak, and after peak effect of COVID-19 on tourism market, oil prices, and carbon emissions using daily data from 6 March 2020 to 6 August 2020. The visuals of WCT exhibit a cyclic (anti-cyclic) relationship between tourism and oil prices, suggesting a strong positive (negative) co-movement in the shorter and longer (medium) period. Tourism and carbon emissions possess a strong positive co-movement across all periods except in the medium run; however, the intensity of this movement is higher in the very short-run compared to medium and longer-run. The results reveal an anti-cyclic association between COVID-19 and tourism, and COVID-19 is leading tourism with strong negative co-movements. Finally, the results describe that carbon emissions and COVID-19 are anti-cyclical and display a positive causality in the shorter run. These results offer valuable guidelines for all stakeholders.
Full-text available
The high power consumption of Bitcoin transactions has raised environmental and sustainable concerns of green investors and regulatory bodies. We utilize the time-varying optimal copula (TVOC) approach to showcase the dependence structure between bitcoin and green financial assets. We find multiple tail-dependence regimes characterize the extreme dependence between bitcoin and green financial assets, and the dependence structure is mainly asymmetric and time-varying. Finally, the hedging effectiveness of green financial assets for bitcoin revealed that all green assets, especially clean energy, are effective hedges for bitcoin.
Full-text available
Cryptocurrency literature is increasing rapidly nowadays. Particularly, the role of the cryptocurrency market as a risk management avenue has got the attention of researchers. However, it is an immature asset class and requires gaps in current literature for future research directions. This research provides a systematic review of the vast range empirical literature based on the cryptocurrency market as a risk management avenue against economic policy uncertainty (EPU). The review discovers that cryptocurrencies have mixed connectedness patterns with all national EPU therefore, the risk mitigation ability varies from country to country. The review finds that heterogeneous correlation patterns are due to the dependence of EPU on the policies and decisions usually taken by regulatory authorities of a particular country. Additionally, heterogeneous EPU requires heterogeneous solutions to deal with stock market volatility and economic policy uncertainty in different economies. Likewise, the divergent protocol and administration of currencies in the crypto market consequently vicissitudes the hedging and diversification performance against each economy. Many research lines can benefit investors, policymakers, fund managers, or portfolio managers. Therefore, the authors suggested future research avenues in terms of topics, data frequency, and methodologies.
Full-text available
Economic policy uncertainty and particularly COVID-19 has stimulated the need to investigate alternative avenues for policy risk management. In this context, this study examines the dynamic association among economic policy uncertainty, green bonds, clean energy stocks, and global rare earth elements. A dynamic conditional correlation-multivariate generalized autoregressive conditional heteroscedasticity (DCC-MGARCH) model was used to gauge the time-varying co-movements among these indices. The analysis finds that green bonds act more as a hedge than a safe haven against economic policy uncertainty (EPU). In the case of diversification, green bonds work as diversifiers with clean energy stocks and rare earth elements during COVID-19 and in the whole sample period. Additionally, clean energy stocks and rare earth elements show safe haven properties against EPUs. This study contributes to the hedging and safe haven literature with some new insight considering the role of green bonds and clean energy stocks. Additionally, the outcomes of the research contribute toward the literature of portfolio diversification theory. These findings pave the way for not only US investors to hedge long-term economic policy risk by investing in green bonds, but also for China and the UK, as these financial assets (green bonds, clean energy stocks, and rare earth metals) and EPU are long-term financial and economic variables.
Full-text available
This study uses a recent approach to examine the causal associations between green bonds and other conventional assets, including clean energy, price of CO2 emission allowances, Bitcoin, and the S&P 500 stock market covering from January 2013 to March 2019. We find a bidirectional relationship between green bonds, S&P 500, and Bitcoin markets, while green bonds have a unidirectional connection with the price of CO2 emission allowances. More importantly, clean energy has a significant impact on green bonds and vice versa throughout the sample period. The results have several useful implications for green bond investors in connection with portfolio design and hedging decisions.
Full-text available
The massive contagion diseases such as COVID-19 amongst others, has affected nearly all the economies and business concerns that leads to substantial decline in the cashflows and returns dynamics. Considering the same, this paper intends to investigate the impact of outbreak of epidemic diseases on the stock return (observed through cumulative average abnormal return (CAAR)) for the listed banks in Pakistan from 2011 to 2020. Event study method was employed and five days pre and ten days post event of each disease were observed as an event window. The results confirm that none of the epidemic disease outbreak significantly determines the CAAR for all listed banks, except COVID-19 and Dengue Fever during the event day. There is a negative and significant impact of COVID-19 on the stock returns for all the banks in Pakistan from the event day to day eight except day seven. More specifically, COVID-19 is found to be a significant indicator for the stock returns of private banks. However, in case of public listed banks, only the outbreak of HIV cases possesses significant and positive impact on CAAR at the day of event. These findings would guide all stakeholders such as investors, financial analysts, regulators, and chief risk officers specifically in banks to make strategic decisions while analyzing the relationship between epidemic outbreaks and stock returns.
Full-text available
Bitcoin is a virtual, decentralized currency based on Blockchain technology. Regardless of where you send Bitcoin, the greenhouse gas emissions stemming from these transactions are distributed around the world. Furthermore, with the increasing public and institutional interest in Bitcoin, the value, complexity of Bitcoin mining, Blockchain networks, as well as the energy required for Bitcoin mining have been rapidly increasing. Here we show the global distribution of greenhouse gas emissions resulting from Bitcoin mining across the globe. We also estimated the carbon footprint of Bitcoin mining per transaction, per country, and per year for the last six years. The carbon footprint estimations of Bitcoin mining are calculated with consideration of the global supply-chain of Bitcoin mining around the world. According to our systematic estimations, carbon emissions are in rapid increase and there is a significant discrepancy between the locations of Bitcoin holders and the locations of emissions. China plays a major role both in emissions due to overall global mining and as a major manufacturer/supplier of Bitcoin mining equipment for all Bitcoin mining countries.
Purpose (1) A concern often expressed in relation to cryptocurrencies is the environmental impact associated with increasing energy consumption and mining pollution. Controversy remains regarding how environmental attention and public concerns adversely affect cryptocurrency prices. Therefore, the paper aims to introduce the index of cryptocurrency environmental attention (ICEA), which aims to capture the relative extent of media discussions surrounding the environmental impact of cryptocurrencies. (2) The impacts of cryptocurrency environmental attention on long-term macro-financial markets and economic development remain part of undeveloped research fields. Based on these factors, the paper will further examine the effects of the ICEA on financial markets or economic developments. Design/methodology/approach (1) The paper introduces a new index to capture cryptocurrency environmental attention in terms of the cryptocurrency response to major related events through gathering a large amount of news stories around cryptocurrency environmental concerns – i.e. >778.2 million news items from the LexisNexis News & Business database, which can be considered as Big Data – and analysing that rich dataset using variety of quantitative techniques. (2) The vector error correction model (VECM) and structural VECM (SVECM) [impulse response function (IRF), forecast error variance decomposition (FEVD) and historical decomposition (HD)] are useful for characterising the dynamic relationships between ICEA and aggregate economic activities. Findings (1) The paper has developed a new measure of attention to sustainability concerns of cryptocurrency markets' growth, ICEA. (2) ICEA has a significantly positive relationship with the UCRY indices, volatility index (VIX), Brent crude oil (BCO) and Bitcoin. (3) ICEA has a significantly negative relationship with the global economic policy uncertainty (GlobalEPU) and global temperature uncertainty (GTU). Moreover, ICEA has a significantly positive relationship with the industrial production (IP) in the short term, whilst having a significantly negative relationship in the long term. (4) The HD of the ICEA displays higher linkages between environmental attention, Bitcoin and UCRY indices around key events that significantly change the prices of digital assets. Research limitations/implications The ICEA is significant in the analysis of whether cryptocurrency markets are sustainable regarding energy consumption requirements and negative contributions to climate change. Understanding of the broader impacts of cryptocurrency environmental concerns on cryptocurrency market volatility, uncertainty and environmental sustainability should be considered and developed. Moreover, the paper aims to point out future research and policy legislation directions. Notably, the paper poses the question of how cryptocurrency can be made more sustainable and environmentally friendly and how governments' cryptocurrency policies can address the cryptocurrency markets. Practical implications (1) The paper develops a cryptocurrency environmental attention index based on news coverage that captures the extent to which environmental sustainability concerns are discussed in conjunction with cryptocurrencies. (2) The paper empirically investigates the impacts of cryptocurrency environmental attention on other financial or economic variables [cryptocurrency uncertainty (UCRY) indices, Bitcoin, VIX, GlobalEPU, BCO, GTU index and the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development IP index]. (3) The paper provides insights into making the most effective use of online databases in the development of new indices for financial research. Social implications Whilst blockchain technology has a number of useful implications and has great potential to transform several industries, issues of high-energy consumption and CO2 pollution regarding cryptocurrency have become some of the main areas of criticism, raising questions about the sustainability of cryptocurrencies. These results are essential for both policy-makers and for academics, since the results highlight an urgent need for research addressing the key issues, such as the growth of carbon produced in the creation of this new digital currency. The results also are important for investors concerned with the ethical implications and environmental impacts of their investment choices. Originality/value (1) The paper provides an efficient new proxy for cryptocurrency and robust empirical evidence for future research concerning the impact of environmental issues on cryptocurrency markets. (2) The study successfully links cryptocurrency environmental attention to the financial markets, economic developments and other volatility and uncertainty measures, which has certain novel implications for the cryptocurrency literature. (3) The empirical findings of the paper offer useful and up-to-date insights for investors, guiding policy-makers, regulators and media, enabling the ICEA to evolve into a barometer in the cryptocurrency era and play a role in, for example, environmental policy development and investment portfolio optimisation.
Green bonds (GB) are gaining a prominent role in sustainable development because of their ability to fund environment-friendly projects. This study aims to investigate if investors can benefit from the risk diversification properties of including GB with other assets, particularly within the context of the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic. To do so, we utilize a quantile-connectedness approach to examine a set of GB and traditional assets, i.e., commodities, stocks, and bonds, from 2008 to 2020. We find higher total time-varying risk spillovers during extreme high volatility periods than those with average and low volatility. For pairwise risk spillovers, GB offers more diversification opportunities when volatility is very low. Nevertheless, the diversification benefits increase during the COVID period. The strong bidirectional risk spillovers between GB and conventional bonds imply that GB can be considered a good alternative to traditional bonds while benefiting from their diversification potential, particularly with energy and agriculture. Our findings are useful for investors wishing to implement green diversification portfolio strategies in extreme volatility periods and act as an encouragement to policymakers to establish efficient policies to promote green finance.
We have developed and made available a new Cryptocurrency Uncertainty Index (UCRY) based on news coverage. Our UCRY Index captures two types of uncertainty: that of the price of cryptocurrency (UCRY Price) and uncertainty of cryptocurrency policy (UCRY Policy). We show that the constructed index exhibits distinct movements around major events in cryptocurrency space. We suggest that this index captures uncertainty beyond Bitcoin, and can be used for academic, policy, and practice-driven research.