Investment Efficiency in Manufacturing SMEs under Green Finance Incentives and Knowledge Diffusion
Keywords:
Green Finance, Knowledge Diffusion, Investment Efficiency, Manufacturing SMEs, Management and InnovationAbstract
The transition towards sustainable manufacturing requires substantial capital investments and advanced technological capabilities, particularly for small and medium-sized enterprises. This paper explores the mechanisms through which green finance incentives and knowledge diffusion interact to explain investment efficiency in manufacturing small and medium-sized enterprises. Despite the increasing availability of green credit and environmental subsidies, these enterprises often suffer from underinvestment in high-risk sustainable projects or overinvestment in redundant conventional assets due to severe information asymmetry and a lack of absorptive capacity. By conceptualizing a dual-channel theoretical framework, this study argues that green finance provides the necessary liquidity and risk mitigation, while knowledge diffusion facilitates managerial foresight and technological adoption. Drawing on a comprehensive dataset of manufacturing enterprises, the empirical analysis reveals that green finance incentives significantly reduce financial constraints, thereby improving baseline capital allocation efficiency. Furthermore, knowledge diffusion acts as a critical moderating mechanism. Enterprises embedded in dense knowledge networks demonstrate a substantially higher capacity to translate green financial support into optimal capital allocation, mitigating both overinvestment and underinvestment tendencies. The findings offer crucial insights for policymakers aiming to design holistic support systems that combine financial instruments with capacity-building knowledge initiatives to foster long-term sustainable economic growth.References
1. Laborde, D.; Mamun, A.; Martin, W.; Piñeiro, V.; Vos, R. Agricultural subsidies and global greenhouse gas emissions. Nat. Commun. 2021, 12, 2601.
2. RePlanet. Wildlife Biodiversity Credit Projects; RePlanet: San Francisco, CA, USA, 2025; Available online: https://www.replanet.org.uk/project/biodiversity-led-projects/ (accessed on 5 November 2025).
3. Cassowary Credits. Revolutionizing Investment in Rainforest Restoration and Protection: A World-First Biodiversity Credit Scheme—Cassowary Credits. 2025. Available online: https://www.cassowarycredits.com.au/ (accessed on 5 November 2025).
4. Yucel, O.; Celik, G.; Yilmaz, Z. Sustainable Investment Attitudes Based on Sustainable Finance Literacy and Perceived Environmental Impact. Sustainability 2023, 15, 16026.
5. Heagney, L.; Nolles, K. The Cost of Biodiversity—What Nascent Biodiversity Markets are Telling Us. Aton Consulting Discussion Paper. 28 March 2024. Available online: https://img1.wsimg.com/blobby/go/cfa07821-39f0-4678-a173-e05e73b884d6/downloads/pricing_of_biodiversity%2020240403.pdf (accessed on 5 November 2025).
6. Flammer, C.; Giroux, T.; Heal, G.M. Biodiversity Finance. J. Financ. Econ. 2025, 164, 103987.
7. Nyanghura, Q.M.; Biber-Freudenberger, L.; Börner, J. Incentives for biodiversity conservation under asymmetric land ownership. Ecol. Econ. 2024, 219, 108152.
8. Sravan, C.; Mishra, P.P. Bridging the gap between finance and conservation biology: How derivatives can help in conservation. J. Nat. Conserv. 2024, 78, 126550.
9. Santos, V.H.; Campos, T.L.R.; Espuny, M.; de Oliveira, O.J. Towards a green industry through cleaner production development. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2022, 29, 349–370.
10. Carbon Pulse. Voluntary Carbon Market (VCM) Report: Prices Widening Between High- and Low-Rated Carbon Credits. 2025. Available online: https://carbon-pulse.com/444281/ (accessed on 9 October 2025).
11. World Economic Forum (WEF). Biodiversity Credits: Demand Analysis and Market Outlook; World Economic Forum: Cologny, Switzerland; McKinsey & Company: New York, NY, USA, 2023; Available online: https://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_2023_Biodiversity_Credits_Demand_Analysis_and_Market_Outlook.pdf (accessed on 9 October 2025).
12. Zhou, L.; Xia, Q.; Sun, H.; Zhang, L.; Jin, X. The Role of Digital Transformation in High-Quality Development of the Services Trade. Sustainability 2023, 15, 4014.
13. Lin, L.; Li, R.; Chen, C. From Pollution “Refuge” to Green “Main Battlefield”: 70 Years of Rural Environmental Governance in China. J. Arid Land Resour. Environ. 2020, 34, 30–36.
14. Gurrib, I.; Kamalov, F.; Starkova, O.; Makki, A.; Mirchandani, A.; Gupta, N. Performance of Equity Investments in Sustainable Environmental Markets. Sustainability 2023, 15, 7453.
15. West, T.A.; Wunder, S.; Sills, E.O.; Börner, J.; Rifai, S.W.; Neidermeier, A.N.; Frey, G.P.; Kontoleon, A. Action needed to make carbon offsets from forest conservation work for climate change mitigation. Science 2023, 381, 873–877.
16. Damania, R.; Balseca, E.; De Fontaubert, C.; Gill, J.; Rentschler, J.; Russ, J.; Zaveri, E. Detox Development: Repurposing Environmentally Harmful Subsidies; World Bank: Washington, DC, USA, 2023.
17. Barbier, E.B. Economics for a Fragile Planet; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2022.
18. Mankiw, N.G.; Romer, D.; Weil, D.N. A contribution to the empirics of economic growth. Q. J. Econ. 1992, 107, 407–437.
19. Barbier, E.B. Greening Agriculture for Rural Development. World Dev. 2025, 191, 106974.
20. Bhutada, G.; Dander, A. The Rising Demand for Nature-Based Climate Solutions; Visual Capitalist: Vancouver, BC, Canada, 2022; Available online: https://www.visualcapitalist.com/the-rising-demand-for-nature-based-climate-solutions (accessed on 9 October 2025).
21. Allied Offsets. Pricing and Activity; Allied Offsets: Washington, DC, USA, 2025; Available online: https://alliedoffsets.com/pricing-activity/ (accessed on 5 November 2025).
22. Streck, C. REDD+ and leakage: Debunking myths and promoting integrated solutions. Clim. Policy 2021, 21, 843–852.
23. Gillingham, K.; Stock, J.H. The cost of reducing greenhouse gas emissions. J. Econ. Perspect. 2018, 32, 53–72.
24. Williamson, P.; Gattuso, J.P. Carbon removal using coastal blue carbon ecosystems is uncertain and unreliable, with questionable climatic cost-effectiveness. Front. Clim. 2022, 4, 853666.
25. Börner, J.; Baylis, K.; Corbera, E.; Ezzine-de-Blas, D.; Honey-Rosés, J.; Persson, U.M.; Wunder, S. The effectiveness of payments for environmental services. World Dev. 2017, 96, 359–374.
26. Mao, X.; Wang, F. Reconstruction of Rural Environmental Governance System from the Perspective of Urban-rural Integration. J. Southwest Minzu Univ. (Hum. Soc. Sci. Ed.) 2022, 43, 190–196.
27. Gao, M.; Zheng, Z. The Theoretical Logic and Practical Approach of Livable, Business-friendly and Beautiful Rural Construction: Based on the Experience and Inspiration of Zhejiang’s “Ten Million Project”. Acad. J. Zhongzhou 2024, 14–22.
28. Grafton, R.Q.; Horne, J.; Wheeler, S.A. Rethinking Water Markets; ORE Environmental Science: Exeter, UK, 2022; Available online: https://oxfordre.com/environmentalscience/view/10.1093/acrefore/9780199389414.001.0001/acrefore-9780199389414-e-800 (accessed on 9 October 2025).
29. Chong, H.; Sunding, D. Water markets and trading. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 2006, 31, 239–264.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Authors

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Articles are distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC BY 4.0), unless otherwise stated.