Journal of Cleaner Production 245 (2020) 118522

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Cleaner Production

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jclepro

Review

Technology transfer for sustainable development: Social impacts

depicted and some other answers to a few questions
Alana Corsi*, Regina Negri Pagani, Joa
~o Luiz Kovaleski, Vander Luiz da Silva
 (UTFPR) Ca
Federal University of Technology, Parana ^mpus Ponta Grossa, Av. Monteiro Lobato, s/n -Km 04, CEP 84016-210, Ponta Grossa, PR, Brazil

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Problems such as resource depletion, climate change, and social and economic contingencies have been
Received 12 July 2019 generating pressures to create strategies to minimize or mitigate these issues. In this context, where
Received in revised form sustainable development and its mechanisms are widely addressed, this paper conducts a systematic
22 August 2019
literature review on technology transfer for sustainable development, seeking to identify the themes
Accepted 20 September 2019
Available online 3 October 2019
addressed and their convergence, as well as the social impacts mentioned. Not only does this study map
out the social impacts found, but it also aims to contribute by disseminating the best strategies to achieve
Handling Editor: Prof. Jiri Jaromir Klemes social development. To achieve that purpose, a systematic literature review was conducted using the
Methodi Ordinatio methodology. The software programs NVivo 12 and VOSviewer® were employed to
Keywords: make the in-depth content analysis. The results show that there is a denial of social impacts in scientific
Technology transfer works. The main approaches addressed in the articles are Strategies, Resources and Technologies, Clean
Sustainable development Development Mechanism and Policies, Regulations and Actions. The main social impacts were Health
Sustainable development goals Improvement, Quality of Life and Poverty Alleviation. Moreover, the focus of the papers is noticeably on
Social impact
vulnerable and developing countries/areas. It is possible to infer that the results found are aligned with
Triple bottom line
those provided by the Sustainable Development Goals. The results also show that there are different
strategies that bring social benefits, which therefore must be studied and diffused. However, there is a
need to address social impacts more widely.
© 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Contents

1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. Theoretical background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2.1. Sustainable development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2.1.1. Mechanisms to promote sustainable development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.2. Technology transfer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4. Results and discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4.1. Bibliometric analyses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4.2. Quantitative analysis: the triple bottom line . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4.3. Social impacts analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
5. Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
6. Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
6.1. Academic and practical implications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
6.2. Research limitations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
6.3. Suggestion for future research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

* Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: alanacorsi@alunos.utfpr.edu.br (A. Corsi), reginapagani@utfpr.
edu.br (R.N. Pagani), kovaleski@utfpr.edu.br (J.L. Kovaleski), vander-luiz@hotmail.
com (V. Luiz da Silva).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.118522
0959-6526/© 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
2 A. Corsi et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 245 (2020) 118522

APPENDIX 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .16
APPENDIX 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
APPENDIX 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

1. Introduction sustainable development, has the CDM been meeting its sustain-
able goals and promoting social impacts? RQ4. What are the pol-
Estimations show that over half of the world’s population will be icies, regulations, and actions mentioned in the literature that
residing in urban centers (UN, 2018) and consuming over 70% of the entail social impacts? RQ5. Are the actions found by this research
world’s resources by 2050 (Madlener and Sunak, 2011). The current aligned with the Sustainable Development Goals?
economic scenario, as well as consumption patterns and growing In an effort to answer the questions above, this paper conducts a
urbanization, leads to resource depletion, climate change, and Systematic Literature Review (SLR) of studies on technology
other social and economic problems, turning them into a reality transfer for sustainable development. Its purpose is not only to
that affects people and the planet. This situation has led a portion of identify the central approaches and themes of these papers but also
the population, NGOs, governments, and the United Nations (UN) to to map the social impacts found by them. The analysis of the ap-
demand the creation of strategies that mitigate or minimize the proaches tackled will answer the questions, allowing this paper to
impacts generated by these problems. ascertain the social impacts that those strategies entail and to
The strategy in action to promote sustainable development diffuse them.
worldwide is the Sustainable Development Goals (SDG), created in This work is structured into five sections. The present one briefly
2015, setting goals to be achieved until 2030. Different mechanisms introduces the themes approached, presents the purpose of the
may help in that endeavor, such as technology transfer, financial paper and the research questions (RQs). Section 2 presents the
support, scientific cooperation (UN, 2015), sustainability-oriented theoretical background for Sustainable Development and Tech-
policies and strategies (UNCED, 1992), education (Wang, 2016), nology Transfer. Section 3 details the methodological procedures
and the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) (Olsen et al., 2019). used for the systematic literature review. Section 4 is dedicated to
Since CDM is a common point connecting technology transfer and bring the results and discussions. Section 5 closes this article with
sustainable development (Park, 2018), this approach will receive the conclusions.
special attention.
Although there are different mechanisms to promote the 2. Theoretical background
development of countries in a sustainable way, this study focuses
on the technology transfer practices that promote sustainable In order to ascertain the connections between the themes, this
development. Technology transfer is a process that distributes section will present a review related to Sustainable Development
technology from its place of origin to more people and places and its mechanisms and a review related to Technology Transfer.
(Günsel, 2015; Ismail et al., 2018). The term comprises not only the
movement of tangible goods and services but also the exchange of
2.1. Sustainable development
ideas and concepts (Yoon and Han, 2017). Although its flows and
approaches vary, the technology transfer must be aligned to the
Sustainable development has been a topic of discussion over the
goal of sustainable development when acting as a sustainability
last three decades due to environmental crises and recurring
tool.
problems (Wang, 2016). The deterioration of the environment will
According to Wang (2016), sustainable living requires changes in
only stop with the establishment of a new economic order, new
the habits and in the mindsets of people and will not be achieved
environmental ethics, and the stabilization of human relationships,
only by finding technical solutions, creating regulatory policies or
making sustainable measures the rule rather than the exception
relying on financial tools (UNESCO, 2011). Some scholars (Shao
lu, 2018) defend the (IUCN, 1980).
et al., 2011; Wang, 2016; Kırlı and Fahriog
The World Commission on Environment and Development
need for considering three sustainability pillars: the social, the
(WCED) presented, in 1987, the first definition for sustainable
environmental, and the economic, as proposed by Elkington (1997),
development in the Brundtland Report, also known as Our Com-
defined as Triple Bottom Line (TBL). Although the three aspects
mon Future. The document states that every generation should
should have the same significance, the social impacts are less
achieve social and economic development by making mindful use
addressed than the others (Akbar and Irohara, 2018). This
of natural resources, preserving species and natural habitats
assumption reinforces the idea that sustainability requires a
(WCED, 1987).
stronger approach toward social impacts.
According to the UN (2019), sustainable development aims to
Therefore, this study will address technology transfer processes
promote economic opportunities, social welfare, and environ-
for sustainable development, focusing on the social aspects and its
mental protection, offering a better path for improving people’s
impacts. Consequently, it is relevant to understand the ways in
lives. It encompasses social and moral justice, ethical acceptance,
which technology transfer processes have been employed to ach-
and economic stability (Wang, 2016), with the purpose of social and
ieve sustainable development, identifying all the resources,
economic progress without destroying natural resources (Wang,
mechanisms and strategies used. To that end, this research will
2016; Kırlı and Fahriog lu, 2018).
answer the following questions: RQ1. What are the technology
The term has received several definitions over the years and
transfer strategies for sustainable development that may result in
revolves around the TBL, which means examining the three sus-
social impacts? RQ2. What are the resources and technologies
tainability pillars: the social, the environmental, and the economic
mentioned for technology transfer aiming at sustainable develop-
(Wang, 2016; Kırlı and Fahriog lu, 2018). The TBL arose with
ment? RQ3. As a common tool between technology transfer and
Elkington (1997) and addresses the social responsibility, the
 A. Corsi et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 245 (2020) 118522
sustainable use of the environment, and the creation of economic
value.
According to Martins et al. (2019), comparing the TBL to the
sustainability of a company, the social axis relates to the well-being
of people, both directly and indirectly affected, and the commu-
nities around the enterprise. Environmental impacts are described
as the impacts of an activity on the environment, which can reduce
or generate/aggravate environmental damage. Finally, economic
impacts refer to the organization’s ability to make profits. The au-
thors also address the relation of the dimensions to health and
well-being, environment and its resources, and financial prosperity,
respectively.
Although all three dimensions are addressed separately, the
impact generated in one dimension may also impact the other
(Svensson et al., 2018). Thus, concepts that address impacts to more
than one axis of TBL emerge, as discussed by Wu et al. (2018), which
dealt with the overlaps of the TBL eco-efficiency, socio-economic
and socio-environmental dimensions, impacting at the same time
on the economic and environmental, social and economic, social
and environmental dimensions, respectively (Labuschagne et al.,
2005).
Bonnett (2006, 2013) and Stables (2013) defend that sustain-
ability is a political slogan; it is a proposition impossible to reach
rather than a logical concept (Stables, 2013). Taking that into ac-
count, employing indicators that measure sustainable benefits
makes them more tangible. According to Feil et al. (2019), innu-
merable indicators measure impacts for the TBL. In the economic
dimension, they concern costs, profit, providers, investment, gross
income, and institutional income. Regarding the environmental
dimension, they cover energy, water, waste, products, and others.
Finally, social indicators concern staff, work, customers, consumers,
community, stakeholders, and ethics.
Although sustainability is measured through impacts on the
TBL, studies have shown that the pillars are weighed unevenly. In
general, the economic aspect receives more significance than the
environmental and the social, with the latter often downright
ignored (Seuring, 2013; Bhinge et al., 2015; Lim and Biswas, 2017;
Akbar and Irohara, 2018). According to Seuring (2013), that is due to
the difficulty of modeling/measuring the social impacts.
Studies related to social indicators and impacts focus on a spe-
cific activity, such as Labuschagne et al. (2005), who mapped four
criteria for measuring social impacts, in an industry-focused study,
encompassing the organization social responsibility in relation to
its workforce, the impact of the organization’s activities on the
community in which it operates, the relationships between the
organization and its internal and external stakeholders, and the
company impact on external population at a regional and/or na-
tional level. On the other hand, Rafiaani et al. (2018) identified that
the most common indicators in a biobased economy activity are
related to health and safety, food security, income, employment,
land-related concerns and workers, energy security, profitability
and gender issues.
2.1.1. Mechanisms to promote sustainable development
The United Nations has taken up the responsibility of promoting
sustainable development, holding congresses, events and different
initiatives aiming at protecting natural biodiversity, ensuring hu-
man rights and carrying out conventions, accords and international
partnerships for peace and security (Shah, 2008). The current effort
promoting sustainable development is the Agenda 2030, contain-
ing the 17 Sustainable Development Goals and presenting actions
and expected results for the evolution of sustainability until 2030.
These objectives must be widely accepted by all the interested
parties to achieve them (UN, 2015).
Other mechanisms also aid in the promotion of sustainable
3
development, like teaching and education, acting also as a sus-
tainable development pillar (UNESCO, 2011). Sustainability is not
achievable only by raising technical solutions, creating regulatory
policies, or relying on financial tools. It requires changes in the
culture, mindset and lifestyle, which rely heavily on investments in
education at all levels (Wang, 2016). Furthermore, science, tech-
nology and innovation can and should be employed to help coun-
tries construct capabilities, develop national policies on science,
technology and engineering, and find solutions for problems
involving climate, energy, food, among others (UNESCO, 2011).
Another tool widely discussed in the literature is the CDM.
Introduced by the United Nations Framework on Climate Change
(UNFCCC) (2010), it aims at reducing the emissions of greenhouse
gases and achieving sustainable development. According to Olsen
et al. (2019), the CDM categorizes benefits to the TBL. These au-
thors explain that the definition of parameters and the assessment
of sustainable benefits in CDM projects are the responsibility of
host countries. Due to the lack of globally accepted parameters and
criteria, the way through which countries define and apply them
varies considerably (Olsen et al., 2019). In addition, through the
CDM, developing countries can receive financial support and still
benefit from the technology transfer promoted by the developed
countries, which in turn achieve their sustainable goals (Park,
2018).
Cooperation and bilateral partnerships are yet another engine
for sustainable development. The Paris Agreement, signed in 2015
as a response to climate change, establishes that parties must
engage in a cooperation involving the international transfer of so-
lutions and outcomes to achieve sustainable goals (UFNCCC, 2015).
Moreover, the SDGs present cooperation and partnerships between
entities as a tool for sustainable development, mentioning the
North-South, the South-South, and the triangular cooperation (UN,
2015).
The SDGs also state that technology transfer is a way to imple-
ment sustainable goals. This process is employed to transfer eco-
friendly technologies suitable to the needs of developing coun-
tries in mutually-agreed terms (UN, 2015). The next section will
present this mechanism in a more detailed approach.
2.2. Technology transfer
Technology transfer is a process of dissemination or retention of
technologies, relevant knowledge, and the outcomes of its imple-
mentation. It generates products or other elements for the involved
parties, which may include industries, individuals, institutions, or
entities (da Silva et al., 2018). In sum, it distributes technologies
from their place of origin to other people and places (Ismail et al.,
2018), guided by the goals of the interested parties (Winebrake,
1992; Autio and Laamanen, 1995). Both the technology trans-
ferred, and the transfer flow may vary.
In this process, the concept of technology includes not only
tangible goods, like a product or a hardware (Buratti and Penco,
2001; Gopalakrishnan and Santoro, 2004), but also intangible as-
sets, like an idea, knowledge, experience, or a software (Bozeman,
2000; Lin, 2003; Maskus, 2003; Günsel, 2015). Some authors re-
gard technology as both tangible and intangible, at once a physical
item and information, hardware and software, products/processes
and know-how (Grosse, 1996; Buratti and Penco, 2001; Li-Hua,
2006; Abdul Wahab et al., 2012; da Silva et al., 2018).
Like technology, the transfer flow also contains different per-
spectives. The generic model proposed by Pagani et al. (2016a) of-
fers four categories of transfer flow: (1) from a knowledge-based
institution to a commercial entity; (2) from a developed-world
corporation to a company in the host country; (3) between com-
panies; (4) other combinations, including from academic spin-offs
4 A. Corsi et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 245 (2020) 118522
to established companies, from universities to students or spin-offs,
from a generic transfer agent to a generic receiver.
The technology transfer process can be facilitated by some
mechanisms, such as spin-offs, licensing, academic publications,
meetings, and R&D cooperation agreements (Rogers et al., 2001). In
the context of sustainable development, the financial support
promoted by the CDM is also a mechanism for the transfer of sus-
tainable technologies (Park, 2018).
In the case of technology transfer as a tool for sustainable
development, both the technology and the transfer flow must be in
line with sustainable objectives. The SDGs establish that the tech-
nologies must be eco-friendly, clean, green, and sustainable, while
the flow must favor vulnerable locations and developing countries
(UN, 2015).
3. Methodology
The systematic literature review has been adopted to review the
advancements in science by several works. It started being exten-
sively used with the Cochrane Collaboration Model (NHMRC, 1999;
Higgins and Green, 2011), which originated many protocols for
Systematic Literature Review (SLR), such as Tranfield et al. (2003),
Kitchenham (2004), Kitchenham et al. (2009) and Okoli and
Schabram (2010).
Pagani et al. (2015, 2017) proposed the Methodi Ordinatio
methodology based on the Cochrane Collaboration Model, which is
regarded by the authors as the root for all the other systematic
review models. The Cochrane model focuses on the particularities
of the health field and the systematic reviews are performed by a
group of reviewers. The Methodi Ordinatio is not limited to a
specific area and it was designed for those researchers that cannot
count on a group of reviewers, such as the Cochrane Collaboration
Model. Another difference in this model is its multicriteria
decision-making tool, which allows the selection of papers
considering three variables: impact factor, number of citations, and
year of publication. These variables generate the InOrdinatio, an
index that indicates the scientific relevance of a study, ranking the
papers individually, which facilitates the selection of the most
relevant studies for the review. Taking into account the vast num-
ber of items found, this optimizes the researchers’ efforts without
compromising scientific quality. The scientific community finds
this combination of factors relevant, as detailed in Pagani et al.
(2015, 2017) and validated by some authors, as Cunha et al.
(2019), Gao et al. (2019), Muller et al. (2019), Pinto et al. (2019)
and Souza et al. (2019). Taking that into account, this study em-
ploys this methodology.
The steps and procedures employed are detailed as follows.
Step 1: Establishing the keywords for the search. The research
revolves around two central themes, technology transfer and
sustainable development. Therefore, this step selected the
keywords “Technology transfer” and “Sustainable develop-
ment”. The Web of Science, Scopus and ScienceDirect databases
were selected for returning the highest results number.
Step 2: Final search in the databases. This step conducted the
final search in the databases, utilizing the keywords and data-
bases defined. Some filtering procedures were applied in the
databases to the final search. Table 1 displays the results
obtained.
Step 3: Filtering out the papers. This step applied filtering pro-
cedures to the results found in Step 2, considering that the initial
number of papers was 1038. Table 2 displays the results.
Step 4: Ranking the papers. In order to rank the 137 papers
found in the previous stage by their scientific relevance, this
step collected the variables number of citations, impact factor,
and year of publication.
The Google Scholar platform was employed to find the number
of citations. The Journal Citation Reports (JCR), made available by
the CAPES portal, provided the impact factor (IF) of each publica-
tion. The metrics CiteScore, Scimago (SJR), and Snipp, in that order,
were employed to assess publications unrated by the JCR.
With these data at hand, the papers were ranked by their sci-
entific relevance via the InOrdinatio Equation, as described by the
Methodi Ordinatio and shown by Equation (1).
InOrdinatio ¼ (IF / 1000) þ a* [10 - (ResearchYear
ePublishYear)] þ (Ci) (1)
IF is the impact factor; a is a weighting factor ranging from 1 to
10 to be attributed by the researcher; Research Year is the year in
which the research was developed; Publish Year is the year in
which the paper was published; and Ci is the number of times the
paper has been cited (Pagani et al., 2015, 2017).
The researcher can attribute significance to the year of publi-
cation according to the needs of the review, using the a factor. This
paper defines a as 10, seeing that more recent studies contain more
current strategies, resources and technologies. These findings have
a greater need for having their knowledge spread (Campos et al.,
2018). Based on the ranking, the portfolio of papers was con-
structed, as shown in Table 3 (Appendix 1).
The software applications Nvivo 12 and VOSviewer were
employed to analyze the initial portfolio, composed of 137 papers.
Afterward, the studies that described impacts on the TBL were
identified and then analyzed quantitatively to find the ones that
mentioned social impacts. They formed the final portfolio,
comprising 48 papers, as shown in Table 4 (Appendix 2). This se-
lection allowed for the analysis of the social impacts and to answer
the research questions, the central focus of this work. Finally, those
impacts were associated with indicators to exemplify methods to
measure them.
The steps are synthetized in Fig. 1.
4. Results and discussion
Subsection 4.1 provides a general view of what is approached in
the 137 papers of the initial portfolio, presenting the main terms,
keywords, authors and approaches. Subsection 4.2 presents a
quantitative analysis regarding the three axis of the TBL and their
approaches. Subsection 4.3 presents a more detailed analysis of the
48 papers of the final portfolio, composed of papers that mentioned
social impacts, contextualizing them and identifying the social
impacts mentioned. Finally, Subsection 4.4 presents the discussions
and the answers to the RQs.
4.1. Bibliometric analyses
The initial portfolio, composed of 137 papers, was submitted to a
bibliometric analysis to identify the central themes, foremost au-
thors, and main keywords and terms found in the portfolio,
employing the software applications VOSviewer® and Nvivo 12.
The first analysis concerned the authors appearing in the port-
folio, as shown in Fig. 2.
As Fig. 2 shows, the authors with more publications in the
portfolio are Charikleia Karakosta and John Psarras. Examining the
papers, Karakosta has nine publications as the lead author, Doukas
has two, and Psarras appears only as a coauthor. These three
scholars make up a network, seeing that Karakosta wrote six arti-
cles in partnership with Doukas and seven with Psarras. The papers
 A. Corsi et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 245 (2020) 118522
Table 1
Final search in databases.
Applied filters
Web of Science
Time restriction No time restriction
Search in Topic
Document type Article and review
Keyword "technolog* transfer*” AND “Sustainab*
combination development”
Total per database 152
Total articles 1.038
Source: Author (2019)
Table 2
Filtering out procedures.
Filtering Procedures
Duplicate papers
Conference papers and books and/or book chapters
Papers not related to the theme (Title)
Papers not related to the theme (Abstract)
Papers not related to the theme (All paper)
Final number of articles
Source: Author (2019)
written by Doukas as the lead author have Karakosta and Psarras as
coauthors. Moreover, seven papers in the portfolio present only the
three authors, and Psarras also published a study in partnership
with Flamos and Georgallis. The portfolio contained other scholars
as lead authors and coauthors that also formed networks, but with
a smaller number of papers.
The foremost authors in the portfolio, as indicated by the
Methodi Ordinatio, are Shrivastava (1995), Trencher et al. (2014)
and Gallagher (2006). They wrote the most relevant papers in
terms of impact factor, year of publication, and number of citations.
Although the article “The role of corporations in achieving
ecological sustainability”, by Shrivastava (1995), is one of the oldest
selected, it was published by the Academy of Management Review,
which has the second highest impact factor in the portfolio.
Moreover, it has been cited eight times more than the second most
cited paper in the collection. Even with the prioritization of the year
of publication, with an a value of 10 in Equation (1), the paper still
ranks first due to the other two variables. This result illustrates the
scientific interest over time in the impacts that a corporation may
have by adopting eco-friendly practices.
The second analysis involved the keywords present in the
portfolio, as shown in Fig. 3.
The keywords with the highest incidence in the articles were
technology transfer, with 94 appearances and linked to 92 other
keywords, and sustainable development, with 91 appearances and
linked to 92 other keywords. Other keywords of note were climate
change (23 times), CDM (23 times), and developing countries (19
times). Regarding countries mentioned as keywords, China
appeared in 13 papers, followed by India, Africa, and Asia with five
incidences. It shows that the portfolio is aligned with the research
objectives and, therefore, with the sustainable development goals.
The third analysis employed Nvivo 12 to collect the main terms
mentioned in the portfolio of papers. The results showed that the
papers focus on technologies and energy, sustainability, CDM pro-
jects, environmental issues, and developing countries, which cor-
roborates the keyword analysis. The analysis related to the article’s
theme and keywords shows that there is a greater concern with
environmental impacts, and that energy and technologies are
widely discussed as a way of tackling problems.
Finally, the last systematic analysis of the initial portfolio
5
Database
Scopus Science Direct
No time restriction No time restriction
Title, abstract, keyword Title, abstract, keyword
Article and review Article and review
"technolog* transfer*” AND “Sustainab* "technology transfer” AND “Sustainable
development” development"
831 55
concerned the themes approached by the 137 papers. The auto-
matic codification tool of Nvivo 12 was employed to find the
Total themes and the number of coded references, as shown in Fig. 4.
149
Fig. 4 illustrates that the central themes approached by the
34 papers are energy and technologies, corroborating the results
178 found by the analyses of keywords and main terms. The theme
534 policy was cited in 771 references, the eighth most frequent topic in
6
the portfolio. Finally, concerning the TBL, the environmental
137
dimension stood out, mentioned in 711 references and the ninth
most frequent topic.
4.2. Quantitative analysis: the triple bottom line
The initial portfolio of 137 papers was examined to find the
percentage of studies on the impacts of at least one of the TBL di-
mensions. The selection contained 18 papers that cited only one
dimension (13%), 18 that included two (13%), 42 that covered all
three (31%), and 59 that did not mention any dimension of TBL
(43%).
From the initial 137 studies, approximately 57% included im-
pacts on at least one of the sustainability pillars, whereas 43% did
not address them. Regarding the group of papers that mentioned
only one dimension, the economic dimension was the most
addressed with seven papers, representing 39% of the papers, fol-
lowed by the environmental with six items, and the social as the
least mentioned with five articles.
Considering the papers that mentioned impacts on two di-
mensions of the TBL, Fig. 5 displays their distribution into the
pillars.
Once again, the impacts on the economic and environmental
dimensions appeared more frequently in the papers, with almost
the double of occurrences of the second combination (environ-
mental and social) and more than double of the last (economic and
social). As established by other authors and reinforced by these
analyses, the economic dimension is the most appreciated, fol-
lowed by the environmental and, finally, the social dimension.
Finally, 42 papers (30%) mention impacts on the entire TBL.
Table 5 (Appendix 3) displays their central themes as presented by
their authors. As previously found by the systematic analyses of
keywords and central themes in the portfolio, the studies mainly
address technologies and energy (clean, low-carbon, sustainable),
CDM projects, and strategies, including food irradiation, systems/
programs aiming at achieving sustainability and dealing with
climate change and its repercussions. Therefore, the impacts found
in the portfolio are related to the application of these technologies/
energy, to the strategies applied, and to the CDM projects, revolving
around the central themes of technology transfer and sustainable
development.
Finally, from the initial portfolio of 137 papers about technology
transfer and sustainable development, 48 papers address impacts,
positive or negative, on the social dimension of the TBL, as shown in
6 A. Corsi et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 245 (2020) 118522
Fig. 1. Research procedures.
Source: Author (2019)
Fig. 1. These studies, representing 35% of the initial selection,
composed the final portfolio in this review and will be the target of
the next analysis.
4.3. Social impacts analysis
The final portfolio, composed of 48 papers that address social
impacts, was submitted to a few analyses. First, their central themes
were examined to identify the context of the social impact at hand,
be it positive or negative. The approaches were then classified into
four categories mapped: Resources/Technologies, Clean Develop-
ment Mechanism (CDM), Strategies, and Policies/Regulations/Ac-
tions. This classification found certain specifics, which allowed for a
subclassification of the approaches, as shown in Fig. 6.
Fig. 6 displays the four central approaches and 13 subcategories
with their respective number of papers, adding up to 48 articles.
Most approaches focused on Strategies, with 40% of the final
portfolio, followed by Resources/Technologies, with 38% of the
papers, CDM, with eight papers representing 17%, and, finally,
Policies/Regulations/Actions with only three papers, representing
less than 10% of the portfolio. Although they differ in central ap-
proaches, which are responsible for presenting a social impact, all
the papers have technology transfer and sustainable development
as central themes.
The subcategories illustrate that most papers focus on specific
technologies, with more than 20% of the papers; strategic practices
were approached by 15%; strategies for selecting technologies best
suited to the host countries’ environment and conditions, by 10% of
the papers.
With a strategy-focused approach, Velazquez et al. (2000)
addressed the cooperation between universities from developed
and developing countries and its resulting benefits. In the same
vein, Bolay (2004) and Hajrizi et al. (2010) approached this strategy
of cooperation between scientific institutes. The first author
focused on international exchange and the second on technology
and knowledge transfer in Kosovo.
Other authors also presented strategy-based approaches but
centered on practices. Shrivastava (1995) discussed the benefits for
corporations that adopt ecologically sustainable practices, Tewfik
et al. (2004) examined the food irradiation practice for sanitary
and phytosanitary treatment in Africa, Karakosta and Askounis
(2010) addressed energy services in developing countries,
Moseson et al. (2012) focused on seeding technologies to enable the
marginalized, Rochon et al. (2009) focused on transfer processes
that contributed to sustainability in developing countries,
Belmonte et al. (2015) studied the impacts of the socio-technical
adequation of technologies in rural areas in Argentina, and Eitzel
et al. (2018) examined the benefits of participative mapping
(remote via satellite) in Zimbabwe.
The strategies category also included papers that focus on pro-
grams, like the eco-efficiency-based DELTA program (Palma and
Zein, 2004), the ASEAN program, which promotes a more effi-
cient and cleaner production targeting a better environment
(Stevenson, 2004), the Vision 2020 program, which intends to
eliminate the cataract problem through intraocular lens replace-
ment surgery (Williams, 2008), and the REDD program, which fo-
cuses on Reducing Emissions caused by Deforestation and forest
Degradation in developing countries, such as those in Africa
(Nhamo, 2011).
Finally, a few authors presented strategies related to the selec-
tion of resources and technologies. Karakosta and Psarras (2009)
and Karakosta et al. (2009) selected the most suitable energy
technologies for sustainable development in Chile. Similarly,
Karakosta et al. (2011) conducted an assessment of sustainable
technologies for Israel, using sustainability criteria. Doukas et al.
(2009) assessed and ranked five options of renewable energy (hy-
droelectric, eolic, solar, geothermic, and oceanic) by their sustain-
able benefits, in terms of their status in the developed world and
their perspectives and potential of implementation in developing
countries, and Doukas et al. (2012) employed sustainable criteria to
assess renewable energy technologies that are best-suited to the
energy sector in Tajikistan.
In the category of papers approaching resources and technolo-
gies, a few studies presented specific technologies. Some authors
have addressed technologies for the construction sector. Harris
 A. Corsi et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 245 (2020) 118522
Fig. 2. Portfolio authors.
Source: Author (2019)
et al. (2008) suggested replacing Portland cement, whose produc-
tion process is highly pollutive and damaging to people’s health,
with sustainable natural Pozzolans, Pinard (2013) assessed the
sustainability of Otta seal technology (graded aggregate), avoiding
the unsustainable continuous use of gravel and reducing the rate of
environmental degradation associated with the depletion of a
scarce and non-renewable resource, and Nasri et al. (2010)
described the technology transfer process, particularly between
Iran and Germany, to facilitate building safe houses in emerging
countries. Still addressing constructions, Urban et al. (2015)
approached large hydroelectric dams and their transfer process
between China and Cambodia, while Chege et al. (2018)
approached the transfer process of the standard-gauge railway in
developing countries, especially in Kenya. Pearce et al. (2012) pre-
sented the Enabling Innovation (EI) system as a way to promote
innovation and allow communities to help each other create sus-
tainable solutions, Jason et al. (2010) proposed employing the
benefits of space technology, like satellites, to promote global so-
lutions for emerging problems, Waswa and Juma (2012) analyzed
the possibility of establishing a space sector in Kenya to improve
the country’s socio-economic conditions, Escalante et al. (2013)
examined the transfer of solar water heaters in Argentina and
remarked on the concept of social technology as one employed to
solve a social issue, and Liu et al. (2013) examined SHP (Small Hydro
Power) technology for the electrification of rural areas in China.
A few authors focused on renewable energies. Shukla et al.
(2010) approached the benefits of renewable energy in India,
Chendo (1994) studied the transfer of renewable energy technol-
ogies in Africa, identifying the impacts on the environment and
7
society, and Holm et al. (2016) discussed the quality of hydric re-
sources and their risks in Malawi. Other scholars centered on
management practices for these resources. Soutter et al. (2008)
examined the management of hydric resources in Romania
employing a geographic information system and Menon-
Choudhary and Shukla (2009) studied the management of air
quality in India. Finally, a few papers addressed resources more
broadly. Ahmed (2004) discussed the impacts caused by weak
technological capability, Baker and Edmonds (2004) studied tech-
nologies and ideas for promoting rural development and their
transfer between Taiwan and Gambia, and Trommetter (2005)
approached genetic resources in developing countries for the sus-
tainable management of biodiversity.
In the papers that approach the Clean Development Mechanism,
Barrera and Schwarze (2004) studied CDM projects that promote
sustainable development. The authors state that the sustainable
development goal of these projects might be out of reach due to the
lack of agreement regarding the sustainability criteria for the
approval of the pilot project. The same idea was presented by
Torvanger et al. (2013), who discussed this problem and suggested
that a general list of criteria included in all national checklists
would be a solution. Regarding the use of sustainability criteria and
indicators to achieve the SDGs, Corradini et al. (2016) examined
CDM projects of forestation and reforestation in Italy employing
sustainability indicators and identified job generation as a social
benefit for the population.
Still regarding flaws in CDM projects, Aggarwal and Aggarwal
(2017) analyzed their role in developing and underdeveloped
countries and found an uneven distribution of projects, with more
8 A. Corsi et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 245 (2020) 118522

Fig. 3. Initial portfolio keyword network.

Source: Author (2019)

Fig. 4. Main themes in the portfolio and the number of coded references.
Source: Author (2019)
 A. Corsi et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 245 (2020) 118522
Fig. 5. Impacts distribution on two dimensions of the TBL.
Source: Author (2019)
Fig. 6. Article distribution by approach and subclassification.
Source: Author (2019)
CDM activities in China and India and less in Africa. Moreover, the
authors concluded that CDM projects often neglect social benefits,
with only 6% of them focusing on that dimension, which illustrates
the need for studies about those impacts.
Other authors approached CDM projects focusing on resources
and technologies. Van der Gaast et al. (2009) analyzed low-carbon
power technology for developing countries, Flamos et al. (2010)
discussed the benefits of bioenergy (biomass combustion,
biomass gasification, and biofuels for transportation), and Lybæk
and Andersen (2010) and Parnphumeesup and Kerr (2011) pre-
sented biomass-focused projects in Thailand, centering on biomass
CHP (combined heat and power) for urban heating and on rice
straw, respectively.
Finally, the least employed approach among the papers was the
focus on policies, regulations, and actions. Luken and Grof (2006)
discussed the benefits of the Montreal Protocol of 1987, which is
regarded as a global environmental agreement that produced
tangible results, Mehta et al. (2016) examined the role of gover-
nance in the cities of the future to solve the climate change prob-
lem, and Imaz and Sheinbaum (2017) reviewed the Sustainable
Development Goals (SDGs).
Table 6 summarizes the contextualization of the articles by
9
approach and relates them to the social impacts mentioned.
The analysis of the papers’ approaches and the impacts found by
them allowed for the identification of the social benefits mentioned
and the authors who found them, as shown in Table 7.
Table 7 shows that job generation was the most mentioned
social benefit for the communities, appearing in 11 papers (23%) of
the final portfolio of 48. The second most occurring benefit was
improvements in the population’s health, found in 10 studies,
representing 21% of the final portfolio, followed by quality of life
(17%) and poverty alleviation (15%).
The most mentioned social benefit in the 19 papers that
involved strategies to promote sustainable development employing
technology transfer was health improvement, found in four papers,
representing 25% of the papers, followed by justice, construction of
knowledge/capability/experience, poverty alleviation, energy se-
curity/supply and quality of life, each presented in three papers
(16%). Further benefits mentioned in this group were food security,
reduction of health expenses, social equity, and generic social
benefit, each one mentioned by one article.
The central approach of 18 articles involved the focus on re-
sources and technologies. The most common benefits were quality
of life and health improvements, found in four papers, representing
22% of the papers. Poverty alleviation and job creation were
mentioned by three papers (17%), followed by food security, edu-
cation improvements, energy generation/security, increased
mobility, fair/affordable and safe transportation, affordable/safe
and sustainable housing, and social welfare, mentioned by two
articles each (11%). Finally, justice, socioeconomic development,
social stability, engagement of rural population, eradication of
gender prejudice, improvements in water treatment, rehabilitation
of rural areas, generic social benefit, and food improvement, had
only one mention each (6%).
Seven of the eight papers approaching CDM projects identified
job generation as a social benefit, representing 88% of the papers.
Other benefits included socioeconomic welfare, poverty alleviation,
health improvements, rural development, and generic social ben-
efits, each mentioned in one paper (13%).
Finally, the three papers focusing on policies, regulations and
actions found quality of life, job generation, and technical knowl-
edge/ability as benefits, each mentioned by a single paper.
After mapping the social benefits, the negative impacts found by
each approach were identified, as shown in Table 8. The approaches
centered on Resources/Technologies mentioned four negative so-
cial impacts, followed by the CDM with three and Strategies with
two. Finally, Policies/Regulation/Actions mentioned only one
negative social impact.
The negative impact most found by authors was the reduction in
quality of life, caused by inadequate natural resources conditions or
management. Doukas et al. (2012) and Holm et al. (2016) found that
low hydric resources (water) standards play a role in the reduction
of people’s quality of life. Similarly, Parnphumeesup and Kerr
(2011) state that poor air quality has the same effect.
Four papers pointed out the uneven balance between the sus-
tainability pillars. Karakosta and Psarras (2009), Karakosta et al.
(2009) and Aggarwal and Aggarwal (2017) found that the envi-
ronmental and economic dimensions receive more attention than
the social while Imaz and Sheinbaum (2017) found that the social
and environmental dimensions are neglected in favor of the eco-
nomic pillar. In sum, it is noticeable that economic benefits are
more appreciated, whereas social benefits are often overlooked. As
demonstrated by Aggarwal and Aggarwal (2017), only 6% of CDM
projects focus on social benefits. This line of thought is reinforced
by Seuring (2013) and Bhinge et al. (2015), who discuss the prev-
alence of the environmental and economic dimensions over the
social, reiterating the need for studies centered on social impacts.
10 A. Corsi et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 245 (2020) 118522

Table 6
Article’s approaches and its social impacts.

CDM Social impact

Adresses low carbon energy technology for developing countries (Van der
Gaast et al., 2009)
Bioenergy benefits (biomass combustion, gasification, and biofuels for
transport) (Flamos et al., 2010)
Biomass (rice husk) in Thailand (Parnphumeesup and Kerr, 2011)
CHP biomass for urban heating in Thailand (Lybæk and Andersen, 2010)
Forestation and reforestation projects in Italy (Corradini et al., 2016)
CDM Project impacts (Torvanger et al., 2013)
Role of CDM in developing and least developed coutries (Aggarwal and
Aggarwal, 2017)
CDM in the Sustainable development promotion (Barrera and Schwarze,
2004)
In Yunnan: clean coal for energy supply, hydroelectric dams, energy-saving lamps and solar
coolers, are great responsible for job creation
Job creation, socio-economic well-being, poverty alleviation, health improvement and rural
development, among others
Job generation to local communities, but by worsening air quality decreases the quality of life
Increase in short- and long-term employment, direct and indirect
Job creation to the population
Social benefits as job generation
only 6% of projects focus on social benefits
Job generation for local people, but the type and duration of contracts were almost never
specified

Policies/regulation/actions Social impact

The Montreal protocol of 1987 (Luken and Grof, 2006)
SDG review (Imaz and Sheinbaum, 2017)
The governance role of cities of the future for climate mitigation and
adaptation at the global level (Mehta et al., 2016)
Job creation strengthen the technical and management skills needed to absorb and adopt
new information
Valuing the economic gain without the same concern with the environmental degradation
and social justice
Adapting climate-resilient technologies is key to promoting quality of life in cities

Resource/technology Social impact

Air quality management in India (Menon-Choudhary and Shukla, 2009) Improvement in quality of life due to better air quality
Enabling innovation system (Pearce et al., 2012) Improved quality of life, poverty alleviation, reducing diseases, public health improvement,
establishing justice, and social and political stability
Enhancement of genetic resources in developing countries (Trommetter, Increased engagement with social development by increasing social welfare
2005)
Management of water resources, based on a geographic information system Facilitate the understanding of the water situation for its treatment, improving the resource
in Romania (Soutter et al., 2008) quality and the quality of life
Otta seal technology (Pinard, 2013) Job generation also in rural areas, poverty alleviation, community involvement, gender bias
elimination, greater rural population integration, increased rural population mobility,
increased traffic safety and improving essential services such as health and education
Portland cement replacement (major polluter) by natural pozzolans (Harris Natural Pozzolans will improve the population health, promote affordable housing, better
et al., 2008) water sanitation and, consequently, higher quality of life
Promote rural development, from Taiwan to Gambia (Baker and Edmonds, Abundance of vegetables, improved diet
2004)
Renewable energy and the water quality and its risks in Malawi (Holm et al., Can negatively impact the quality of life of the population in Malawi
2016)
Renewable energy benefits in India (Shukla et al., 2010) Increased energy security, rural job creation, improved farm incomes, rehabilitation of areas,
the possibility of creating manufacturing jobs, plant operations and agriculture
Renewable energy in Africa (Chendo, 1994) Carbon dioxide: does not harm living beings. Sulfur dioxide: causes respiratory problems.
Nitrous oxide: Causes eye irritation and cough. Dust: impaired vision, difficulty to breath
Safe constructions in emerging countries, in Iran and Germany (Nasri et al., Safety and sustainable houses
2010)
SHP technology, using China as a successful example of rural electrification SHP is one of the most appropriate sources of energy to alleviate poverty in rural areas,
(Liu et al., 2013) contributing to the socioeconomic development of small, sparsely and geographically
isolated population, promoting development for these regions by combating their
vulnerable status
Solar water heaters in Argentina (Escalante et al., 2013) Internalization of social benefits for creation and sustainability
Large hydroelectric dams in China and Cambodia (Urban et al., 2015) Negative impacts on livelihoods, about 22,000 people are directly affected by the dam,
marked decline in tourism after the dam construction, many residents still have no access to
electricity and no resettlement
Space technologies in Kenya to improve the socioeconomic conditions of the Creation of employment opportunities in the space-based manufacturing industries and in
country (Waswa and Juma, 2012) the space support sector, improvement in food security, health (vigilance and epidemiology
of the disease, Tele Medicine network, national distribution of medicines), and education
Space technology benefits (satellites) (Jason et al., 2010) Improving food security
Standard gauge railway, in Kenya context (Chege et al., 2018) Promotes well-being through fair and affordable access to safe transportation and mobility
Weak technological capacity (Ahmed, 2004) Factor limiting food security in Africa

Strategy Social impact

ASEAN program for cleaner production (Stevenson, 2004)
Assessment of sustainable energy technologies in Chile and their transfer
(Karakosta et al., 2009)
Assessment of sustainable technologies for its transfer to Israel (Karakosta
et al., 2011)
Benefits of selecting the most appropriate energy technologies in Chile
(Karakosta and Psarras, 2009)
Cooperation between UBT university and other entities to transfers in
Kosovo (Hajrizi et al., 2010)
Cooperation between universities in developing and developed countries
(Velazquez et al., 2000)
Corporations that adopt ecologically sustainable actions (Shrivastava, 1995)
Environmental professionals trained in public and private institutions
Stakeholders consider environmental and economic benefits more important than social
benefits
Energy supply security and poverty alleviation
Stakeholders consider environmental and economic benefits more important than social
benefits
Knowledge increase for scholars in the universities
Health improvement for the citizens of Sonora
Environmental benefits for communities in which the companies operate, ecological
performance improvement, being able to improve the health of the population with the
reduction of industrial pollution, reducing health expenses
 A. Corsi et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 245 (2020) 118522 11

Table 6 (continued )

DELTA program - ecoefficiency (Palma and Zein, 2004) Building capabilities and local expertise, providing technical assistance and experience
Energy services needs and priorities in developing countries (Karakosta and Chile (security of electricity supply for houses and industry); Kenya (access to reliable
Askounis, 2010) modern energy sources and energy for cooling was perceived as primarily related to
improved health), and Thailand (energy security for quality of life)
Assessment of five renewable energy (hydroelectric, wind, solar, geothermal In developed countries the renewable energy technology with the most social benefits are:
and ocean) through its sustainable benefits (Doukas et al., 2009) wind and solar, and in developing countries are: hydroelectric, wind, solar and geothermal
Food irradiation for sanitary and phytosanitary treatment in Africa (Tewfik Preserve food and ensure its salubrity, significantly increasing health
et al., 2004)
Participatory mapping (satellite) benefits in Zimbabwe (Eitzel et al., 2018) Detection and poverty alleviation and sustainability of the most vulnerable populations on
the planet
REDD benefits in developing countries (Africa) (Nhamo, 2011) Social justice
Scientific cooperation in international trade (Bolay, 2004) Social equity, mechanisms that guarantee the redistribution of wealth among individuals
giving rise to justice and increase productivity and invention
Socio-technical adequacy of technologies, in the rural areas of northwest Improved quality of life
Argentina (Belmonte et al., 2015)
Technology seeding to empower the marginalized (Moseson et al., 2012) Social justice for the marginalized
Technology transfer to promote sustainability of developing countries Socially beneficial goals and poverty reduction
(Rochon et al., 2009)
The most appropriate renewable energy technologies for Tajikistan (Doukas The quality of water limits the quality of life, and also limits the development of solar water
et al., 2012) heating energy in the country
Vision 2020 program for cataract elimination (Williams, 2008) Improvement in the quality of life with intraocular lens replacement surgery

Source: Author (2019)

Table 7
Main social benefits, according to the authors.

Social benefits Authors

Job creation Barrera and Schwarze (2004); Luken and Grof (2006); Van der Gaast et al. (2009); Flamos et al. (2010); Lybæk and Andersen
(2010); Shukla et al. (2010); Parnphumeesup and Kerr (2011); Waswa and Juma (2012); Pinard (2013); Torvanger et al.
(2013); Corradini et al. (2016)
Health improvement Shrivastava (1995); Velazquez et al. (2000); Tewfik et al. (2004); Harris et al. (2008); Karakosta and Askounis (2010); Flamos
et al. (2010); Pearce et al. (2012); Waswa and Juma (2012); Pinard (2013); As consequence, reduction of health expenses
occurs: Shrivastava (1995)
Quality of life Williams (2008); Harris et al. (2008); Soutter et al. (2008); Menon-Choudhary and Shukla (2009); Karakosta and Askounis
(2010); Pearce et al. (2012); Belmonte et al. (2015); Mehta et al. (2016)
Poverty alleviation Rochon et al. (2009); Flamos et al. (2010); Karakosta et al. (2011); Pearce et al. (2012); Liu et al. (2013); Pinard (2013); Eitzel
et al. (2018)
Energy security/supply/access Doukas et al. (2009); Shukla et al. (2010); Karakosta and Askounis (2010); Karakosta et al. (2011); Liu et al. (2013)
Capacity/knowledge/experience building Palma and Zein (2004); Stevenson (2004); Luken and Grof (2006); Hajrizi et al. (2010)
and technical ability
Justice Bolay (2004); Nhamo (2011); Pearce et al. (2012); Moseson et al. (2012)
Generic social benefits Rochon et al. (2009); Torvanger et al. (2013); Escalante et al. (2013)
Well-being Trommetter (2005); Chege et al. (2018); Socioeconomic: Flamos et al. (2010); Liu et al. (2013)
Food security Tewfik et al. (2004); Jason et al. (2010); Waswa and Juma (2012)
Stability/Social equity Bolay (2004); Pearce et al. (2012)
Education improvement Waswa and Juma (2012); Pinard (2013)
Increased mobility Pinard (2013); Chege et al. (2018)
Improved traffic safety and accessible Pinard (2013); Chege et al. (2018)
transportation
Food Improvement Tewfik et al. (2004); Baker and Edmonds (2004)
Affordable/safe/sustainable housing Harris et al. (2008); Nasri et al. (2010)
Better water sanitation Harris et al. (2008)
Rural areas rehabilitation Shukla et al. (2010)
Rural community involvement Pinard (2013)
Rural development Flamos et al. (2010)
Gender bias elimination Pinard (2013)

Source: Author (2019)

Moreover, regarding CDM projects, studies mention the absence
of benefits for the triple bottom line (Torvanger et al., 2013) or the
lack of definition of benefits generated by them (Barrera and
Schwarze, 2004). These results go against the nature of the CDM
concept, seeing that its raison d’^
etre is reaching sustainable devel-
opment. Torvanger et al. (2013) argues that the lack of benefits for
the TBL is explained by the absence of a list of sustainable criteria
employed by all the national checklists for CDM projects, which is
corroborated by Olsen et al. (2019).
The papers selected in this review examined a variety of places
and locations in which the social impacts occurred. These locations
were mapped to better understand them, as shown in Table 9.
This analysis showed that most of the papers focus on
developing countries. Overall, 19% of the papers focus on devel-
oping countries as a whole, 29% focus on specific Asian countries,
21% on specific African countries, and 8% on specific South Amer-
ican countries. From these continents, the main countries
mentioned were Thailand, India, China, and Kenya, mentioned by
three authors each. In addition to developing countries, rural areas/
communities, local populations/communities, and more vulnerable
populations were mentioned, representing 13%, 8% and 2% of the
articles, respectively. The focus on developed countries was present
in only 6% of the 48 articles; European countries were the most
mentioned among them.
Only one paper approached the corporate field, presenting the
impacts observed in corporations that adopt eco-friendly,
12 A. Corsi et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 245 (2020) 118522

Table 8
Negative social impacts mentioned by each approach.

Approach Negative social impact

Strategies Environmental and economic benefits more appreciated than the social ones (Karakosta and Psarras, 2009; Karakosta et al., 2009)
Water quality decreases the quality of life and limits the development of renewable energy from solar water heating (Doukas et al., 2012)
Resources/ The quality of hydric resources reduces the population’s quality of life (Holm et al., 2016)
Technologies Weak technological capability may limit food security (Ahmed, 2004)
Large hydroelectric dams negatively affect the local population. The most affected are impoverished bamboo collectors who cannot enter their
original bamboo area due to the construction of the dam and fruit sellers who are vulnerable due to a marked decline in tourism after the dam
construction (Urban et al., 2015)
Atmospheric gases causing health problems in people, such as eye irritation, cough, and respiratory problems (Chendo, 1994)
CDM Worsening air quality reduces the quality of life (Parnphumeesup and Kerr, 2011)
Environmental and economic benefits are more appreciated than the social ones (Aggarwal and Aggarwal, 2017)
Impacts of job generation not specified in the projects, such as the duration and the type of employment created (Barrera and Schwarze, 2004)
Policies/Regulation/ The economic axis is more appreciated than the environmental and social axes (Imaz and Sheinbaum, 2017)
actions

Source: Author (2019)

Table 9
Places and locations in which the social impacts occurred.

Location Authors

Developing country Velazquez et al. (2000); Trommetter (2005); Doukas et al. (2009); Van der Gaast et al. (2009); Nasri et al. (2010); Rochon et al. (2009); Moseson
et al. (2012); Urban et al. (2015); Aggarwal and Aggarwal (2017)
Asia Thailand: Karakosta and Askounis (2010); Lybæk and Andersen (2010); Parnphumeesup and Kerr (2011). India: Menon-Choudhary and Shukla
(2009); Shukla et al. (2010); Aggarwal and Aggarwal (2017); China: Van der Gaast et al. (2009); Urban et al. (2015); Aggarwal and Aggarwal
(2017). Tajikistan: Doukas et al. (2012). Israel: Karakosta et al. (2011). Taiwan: Baker and Edmonds (2004). Cambodia: Urban et al. (2015). Iran:
Nasri et al. (2010)
Africa Chendo (1994); Ahmed (2004); Tewfik et al. (2004); Karakosta and Askounis (2010); Nhamo (2011); Aggarwal and Aggarwal (2017). Kenya:
Baker and Edmonds (2004); Waswa and Juma (2012); Chege et al. (2018). Malawi: Holm et al. (2016)
South America Chile: Karakosta and Psarras (2009); Karakosta et al. (2009); Karakosta and Askounis (2010). Argentina: Escalante et al. (2013)
Local population/ Palma and Zein (2004); Barrera and Schwarze (2004); Pearce et al. (2012). Sonora’s population: Velazquez et al. (2000)
community
Rural areas/community Baker and Edmonds (2004); Flamos et al. (2010); Shukla et al. (2010); Pinard (2013) Liu et al. (2013); Belmonte et al. (2015)
Most vulnerable Eitzel et al. (2018)
populations
Europe Kosovo: Hajrizi et al. (2010). Romania: Soutter et al. (2008). Germany: Nasri et al. (2010). Italy: Corradini et al. (2016)
Developed countries Velazquez et al. (2000); Doukas et al. (2009); Nasri et al. (2010)
Corporation Shrivastava (1995)

Source: Author (2019)

sustainable actions (Shrivastava, 1995). The Methodi Ordinatio
protocol identified the paper written by Shrivastava (1995) as the
most scientifically relevant, cited eight times more than the second
place, which illustrates the academic interest in the subject.
Velazquez et al. (2000) and Hajrizi et al. (2010) examined the
context of universities to discuss the impacts caused by their
partnerships with other institutions on technology transfer, inno-
vation, and ideas. According to UNESCO (2011), education, science
and technology, which may result from education institutions, are
mechanisms able to promote both sustainable development and
technology transfer, as proposed by the SDGs (UN, 2015).
Some papers addressed the transfer flows directly, the South-
South relations (Baker and Edmonds, 2004; Urban et al., 2015)
and the North-South relations (Nasri et al., 2010). They also
approached partnerships between developed and developing
countries, such as Velazquez et al. (2000), who discussed the
cooperation between universities from those countries to generate
benefits for the population. These relations and transfer flow
reinforce the process of technology transfer mentioned by the SDGs
to promote sustainable development (UN, 2015).
The social impacts found in the literature were compared to the
SDGs in order to ascertain which of the 17 goals are met through a
determined social benefit. The social impacts and their respective
SDGs were then linked to the social indicators proposed by the
United Nations Economic and Social Council’s report (ECOSOC,
2016), composed of 241 indicators, to assess and measure the so-
cial impacts found, as shown in Fig. 7. These social indicators enable
improvements in the quality of life and welfare of the citizens
(Pagani et al., 2016b).
Fig. 7 shows that several indicators may be employed to mea-
sure the social impacts, but not every impact has a metric suitable
to represent them. For instance, the impact quality of life correlates
with SDG 3, which focuses on ensuring healthy lives and welfare for
all. However, social indicators measure health impacts through
factors like air pollution or access to health-promoting resources.
There is not a single specific indicator that simultaneously en-
compasses several areas and measures quality of life.
Similarly, the impact welfare does not correspond to a metric
that comprises different areas, only focusing on the health and
mobility of rural populations. In this context, the Human Devel-
opment Index (HDI) is a suitable metric. As a measure that en-
compasses fundamental aspects for human development, the HDI
takes into account the aspects long and healthy life, linked to life
expectancy at birth (SDG 3), education, measured through the
number of years in school (SDGs 4.3 and 4.6), and acceptable
standards of living, assessed through gross national income per
capita (GNI index) (SDG 8.5). The HDI aggregates the three aspects
into a single index through the geometric mean (UNPD, 2018).
This analysis shows that the social impacts most mentioned in
the papers entail changes especially for SDG 3, related to health and
welfare, SDG 1, with poverty alleviation, SDG 2, solving hunger-
related issues, and SDG 9, concerning improvements in infra-
structure, knowledge, and innovation. Other SDGs approached via
the social impacts included SDGs 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11 and 16.
 A. Corsi et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 245 (2020) 118522 13

Fig. 7. Link between the social impacts, the SDGs (UN, 2015) and the indicators available in ECOSOC (2016).
Source: Adapted from United Nations Economic and Social Council’s Report (2016) and UN (2015).
14 A. Corsi et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 245 (2020) 118522
Therefore, it is possible to conclude that the social impacts found in
this portfolio of papers are connected to actions toward most of the
notable Sustainable Development Goals. Moreover, they can be
measured, which is relevant to achieving the goals proposed by the
Agenda 2030.
5. Discussion
The analysis presented led to discussions and considerations,
which answered the research questions.
The papers in the portfolio corroborate other authors demon-
strating the uneven balance between the sustainability pillars.
Economic benefits prevail, followed by environmental benefits and,
much further behind, social benefits (Durosomo, 1993; Karakosta
and Psarras, 2009; Karakosta et al., 2009; Aggarwal and
Aggarwal, 2017; Imaz and Sheinbaum, 2017). Aggarwal and
Aggarwal (2017) argued that social benefits are neglected in CDM
projects, finding that over 45% of them focus on environmental and
economic results whereas social benefits are presented in only 6%,
which require more attention. The studies of Karakosta and Psarras
(2009) and Karakosta et al. (2009) selected the most suitable
technologies for sustainable development in Chile and found that
stakeholders give more weight to environmental and economic
benefits when choosing the technology, in detriment to the social
aspect.
Although the social impacts are fewer in number compared to
the environmental and economic impacts, the papers in the port-
folio presented approaches that resulted in social benefits. They
included strategies (practices, programs, selection of resources and
technologies, scientific cooperation), resources/technologies (spe-
cific technologies, renewable energy, resource management, and
general approaches), the CDM (directed toward resources and
technologies, projects containing goals and results), and policies/
regulations/actions (the role of governance, the SDGs, and the
Montreal Protocol). The main themes addressed were regarding
technologies and energies that contribute to sustainable develop-
ment, and specifically the social dimension, as small hydropower
plants, cited by Liu et al. (2013) and Kuriqi et al. (2017) as a source
capable of generating social benefits, ratified by Kuriqi et al. (2019).
These approaches found social impacts mostly related to health
improvements, improved quality of life, job generation, and
poverty alleviation. The analysis of the papers, the approaches, and
their social impacts answered the research questions.
RQ1. What are the technology transfer strategies for sustainable
development that may result in social impacts?
The strategies found included cooperation between universities
and other institutes (Velazquez et al., 2000; Bolay, 2004; Hajrizi
et al., 2010); practices like seeding technology (Moseson et al.,
2012), remote participative mapping (Eitzel et al., 2018), food
irradiation (Tewfik et al., 2004), corporations adopting sustainable
practices (Shrivastava, 1995), prioritization of energy services
(Karakosta and Askounis, 2010), and socio-technical adequation of
technologies (Belmonte et al., 2015); programs like DELTA (Palma
and Zein, 2004), Vision 2020 (Williams, 2008), ASEAN (Stevenson,
2004), and REDD (Nhamo, 2011); finally, strategies for the selec-
tion of technologies best suited for the host country context
(Karakosta and Psarras, 2009; Karakosta et al., 2009, 2011; Doukas
et al., 2009, 2012). These strategies resulted in innumerable social
impacts, as follows.
Social impacts (RQ1): Health improvements, justice, construc-
tion of knowledge/capability/experiences, poverty alleviation, en-
ergy access/supply, improved quality of life for the population,
social equity and food security.
RQ2. What are the resources and technologies mentioned for
technology transfer aiming at sustainable development?
The resources and technologies mentioned by the authors that
generated social impacts were the EI System for innovation (Pearce
et al., 2012), space technology (Waswa and Juma, 2012; Jason et al.,
2010), SHP technology (Liu et al., 2013), Otta seal technology
(Pinard, 2013), natural pozzolans (Harris et al., 2008), Technology
for building safe houses (Nasri et al., 2010), Standard-gauge railway
(Chege et al., 2018); Solar water heating (Escalante et al., 2013),
Large hydroelectric dams (Urban et al., 2015), renewable energy
(Chendo, 1994; Shukla et al., 2010), hydric resources (Holm et al.,
2016), genetic resources (Trommetter, 2005), resource manage-
ment for water (Soutter et al., 2008) and air (Menon-Choudhary
and Shukla, 2009), technologies and knowledge for rural develop-
ment (Baker and Edmonds, 2004), and the impact of weak capa-
bility of technological resources (Ahmed, 2004). Employing these
resources and technologies promoted the following social impacts.
Social impacts (RQ2): Improved quality of life, health im-
provements, job generation, poverty alleviation, food and energy
security, education improvements, increased mobility and safe/
accessible transport, safe/affordable and sustainable housing, social
welfare, justice, socioeconomic development, the rehabilitation of
rural areas and the involvement of these communities, improved
sanitation of water and food, and the elimination of gender bias.
RQ3. As a common tool between technology transfer and sustain-
able development, has the CDM been meeting its sustainable goals
and promoting social impacts?
Some authors argue that the CDM is not meeting its sustainable
goals (Barrera and Schwarze, 2004; Torvanger et al., 2013). Barrera
and Schwarze (2004) argue that the lack of pre-established sus-
tainable criteria causes this shortcoming and Torvanger et al. (2013)
point to the utilization of a general list of sustainable criteria
employed by all the national CDM projects as a solution for the
problem. Another finding concerned the uneven geographic dis-
tribution of these projects (Paulsson, 2009; Flamos et al., 2010;
Bayer et al., 2014), which also goes against its role in sustainability
of promoting development for developing countries. Furthermore,
Karakosta et al. (2012) stated that the projects manage to achieve
significant reductions in low-cost emissions instead of meeting the
needs and priorities of sustainable development in the host coun-
try. Although they need improvement in certain points, like stra-
tegically aligning their goals with sustainable development, CDM
projects created the following social impacts.
Social impacts (RQ3): Job generation, poverty alleviation, socio-
economic welfare, rural development, health improvements, en-
ergy supply, among others.
RQ4. What are the policies, regulations, and actions mentioned in
the literature that entail social impacts?
In the approaches centered on policies, regulations, and actions,
authors addressed the role of governance in the cities of the future
and the impacts resulting from this city model (Mehta et al., 2016),
the review of the Sustainable Development Goals (Imaz and
Sheinbaum, 2017), and the results of the Montreal Protocol,
signed in 1987 (Luken and Grof, 2006). These policies/regulations
and actions had the following social impacts.
Social impacts (RQ4): improved quality of life for the citizens in
the cities of the future, job generation, and the construction of
technical skills and capabilities proposed by the Montreal Protocol.
 A. Corsi et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 245 (2020) 118522
RQ5. Are the actions found by this research aligned with the Sus-
tainable Development Goals?
The analysis of technologies, resources, strategies, projects, and
goals of the proposals of technology transfer showed a focus on
sustainable practices, like clean/renewable technologies, that pro-
mote benefits for the triple bottom line. Furthermore, the central
locations approached by the studies are developing and underde-
veloped countries, especially in Africa and India (Velazquez et al.,
2000; Doukas et al., 2009; Trommetter, 2005; Rochon et al.,
2009; Nasri et al., 2010; Moseson et al., 2012; Eitzel et al., 2018;
Karakosta and Askounis, 2010; Nhamo, 2011; Aggarwal and
Aggarwal, 2017; Van der Gaast et al., 2009). Further locations
included remote regions, rural areas, and local communities,
focusing on the citizens (Liu et al., 2013; Shukla et al., 2010; Pinard,
2013; Baker and Edmonds, 2004; Flamos et al., 2010; Belmonte
et al., 2015; Palma and Zein, 2004; Pearce et al., 2012; Barrera
and Schwarze, 2004; Velazquez et al., 2000). These results
demonstrate that the social impacts and central approaches are
mainly centered on areas that require more attention, like devel-
oping and underdeveloped countries, marginalized regions, and
poorer countries in Africa and Asia. They also show a focus on
sustainable/clean/renewable technologies and resources. More-
over, the social impacts identified are aligned with most of the
SDGs and can be measured by different indicators, making the goals
more tangible and matching the current actions sponsored by the
Agenda 2030.
6. Conclusions
Technology transfer is mentioned by the SDGs (UN, 2015) as a
mechanism that promotes sustainable development. However, the
transfer process may present different flows and diverse technol-
ogies. These aspects need to be aligned with the SDGs so that
technology transfer can fulfill its role as a tool for advancing sus-
tainability. Therefore, it is necessary to understand how technology
transfer has been approached in studies about sustainable devel-
opment in order to achieve more sustainable practices.
The Brundtland Report, replicated by several authors, defines
sustainable development as one that meets the needs of current
generations without interfering or compromising the ability of
future generations to meet theirs. Achieving social and economic
development for all generations requires the mindful use of natural
resources, preserving species and natural habitats (WCED, 1987).
Therefore, the three sustainability pillars (environmental, eco-
nomic, and social) must be equally addressed. However, studies
have shown an uneven distribution/prioritization between the
sustainability dimensions, with the economic and environmental
benefits prevailing over the social ones and corroborated by this
work.
This paper’s purpose was to conduct a systematic literature re-
view of the studies that approach technology transfer for sustain-
able development, identifying the central themes to ascertain how
the technology transfer process has been applied to advance sus-
tainability and mapping the social impacts found, seeing that it is
an often-neglected dimension. The protocols created by Pagani
et al. (2015, 2017), named Methodi Ordinatio, were employed to
select a portfolio of papers, which were then submitted to analyses
concerning their central themes, main keywords, foremost authors,
distribution of impacts on the triple bottom line, and the social
impacts mentioned.
The papers selected in the initial portfolio, composed by 137
articles, addressed the themes of technology and energy for sus-
tainable development, the climate change issue, and CDM projects.
The papers selected in the final portfolio, composed by 35% of the
15
initial portfolio, mentioned social impacts and their approaches
focused on Strategies (40%), Resources and Technologies (38%),
CDM projects (17%), and Policies/Regulations and Actions (6%).
Despite their distinct approaches, all the papers centered on pro-
moting sustainable development through technology transfer
practices.
Positive social impacts mentioned in the final portfolio included
Job Creation, mentioned by 23% of the final portfolio; Health Im-
provements (21%); Improved Quality of Life (17%); Poverty Allevi-
ation (15%); and Energy Access/Security/Generation (10%). The
most common negative social impact identified was an inferior
quality of life due to the lower quality of a natural resource like air,
cited by two authors, or water, cited by only one author. Another
negative social impact addressed was the distribution of benefits in
the TBL, with the economic and environmental dimensions more
appreciated than the social, mentioned by three authors.
Finally, the papers’ approaches and their social impacts were
widely centered on developing countries, either in general, cited by
19% of the 48 articles, or in specific locations, like Africa, mentioned
by six authors; Thailand, India, China and Kenya, mentioned by
three authors each, and rural areas/communities, cited by 13% of
the 48 articles. These results comply with the SDGs, which
encourage the transfer of sustainable technologies to vulnerable
areas, communities, and developing countries.
The results showed that the social impacts were related to SDGs
indicators and the indicators proposed by the United Nations
Economic and Social Council’s report (2016). Thus, it is possible to
view the relevance of technology transfer practices for sustainable
development as a way of contributing to the fulfillment of the SDGs,
as well as resulting in social benefits. The social impacts identified
correspond to approximately 80% of the SDGs, illustrating the
relevance of adopting the practices, strategies, technologies, and
resources mentioned in this review.
6.1. Academic and practical implications
This paper produced both academic and practical contributions.
As the literature review found, the social impacts are often over-
looked in the results of scientific works. Therefore, this work con-
tributes by identifying the main social impacts found by papers that
approached the technology transfer mechanism as a tool for sus-
tainable development.
The practical contribution of this work is finding actions/prac-
tices, resources/technologies, ideas, strategies, and processes pre-
viously adopted by other scholars that resulted in several social
impacts. These findings can be further studied and applied to
achieve a determined positive social impact or even eliminate a
negative social impact previously caused. This study revealed
practices and tools that may be adopted and employed by other
entities to achieve the same or new social benefits.
6.2. Research limitations
The main limitation of this study is the fact that the review used
only articles from journals, excluding studies published in confer-
ences, books and book chapters.
6.3. Suggestion for future research
Considering that the social impacts are the least explored by the
literature, it is necessary to identify them in other areas and define
a set of indicators that measure their results. As previously seen,
one of the reasons for the lack of a wide discussion on social im-
pacts is their subjectivity and the difficulty of measuring them.
Therefore, it is vital to identify the relevant aspects of each social
16 A. Corsi et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 245 (2020) 118522

impact and propose indicators that include them in their metrics. Finance Code 001.

Acknowledgments
APPENDIX 1
This study was financed in part by the Coordenaç~
ao de Aper-
feiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior e Brasil (CAPES) e

Table 3
Initial portfolio composed by 137 articles.

Title InOrdinatio

The role of corporations in achieving ecological sustainability 1671,01

Beyond the third mission: Exploring the emerging university function of co-creation for sustainability 230,00
Limits to leapfrogging in energy technologies? Evidence from the Chinese automobile industry 183,00
A review of the CDM literature: from fine-tuning to critical scrutiny? 174,00
Sustainable bioenergy for India: Technical, economic and policy analysis 131,00
International Technology Transfer, Climate Change, and the Clean Development Mechanism 126,00
Promoting sustainable energy technology transfers to developing countries through the CDM 102,01
Effect of foreign direct investments, economic development and energy consumption on greenhouse gas emissions in developing countries 102,00
The role of policy instruments in the innovation and diffusion of environmentally friendlier technologies: popular claims versus case study experiences 100,01
Sustainable development through technology transfer networks: Case of Lithuania 97,00
Linking small-scale fisheries to international obligations on marine technology transfer 94,00
Technology transfer phenomenon and its impact on sustainable development 93,00
Renewable electrification and local capability formation: Linkages and interactive learning 92,00
How to make the clean development mechanism sustainable - The potential of rent extraction 92,00
Sustainability of University Technology Transfer: Mediating Effect of Inventor’s Technology Service 91,00
Assessing co-benefit barriers among stakeholders in Chinese construction industry 90,01
Sustainable forest bioenergy development strategies in Indochina: Collaborative effort to establish regional policies 90,00
Influence of technology transfer on performance and sustainability of standard gauge railway in developing countries 90,00
Sustainable development as successful technology transfer: Empowerment through teaching, learning, and using digital participatory mapping techniques in 90,00
Mazvihwa, Zimbabwe
Grasping climate technology transfer: A brief discussion on Indian practice 90,00
Offshore wind energy development in China: Current status and future perspective 86,01
Environmental Policy and the International Diffusion of Cleaner Energy Technologies 85,00
South-South Technology Transfer of Low-Carbon Innovation: Large Chinese Hydropower Dams in Cambodia 84,00
Building Sustainable Development through Technology Transfer in a Romanian University 84,00
Low-carbon innovation and technology transfer in latecomer countries: Insights from solar PV in the clean development mechanism 83,00
Examining perspectives and dimensions of clean development mechanism A critical assessment vis-a-vis developing and least developed countries 83,00
Positioning and priorities of growth management in construction industrialization: Chinese firm-level empirical research 82,00
Protecting the Malacca and Singapore Straits from Ships’ Atmospheric Emissions through the Implementation of MARPOL Annex VI 82,00
An examination of the potential links between ict technology transfer and sustainable development 82,00
Will Technological Change Save the World? The Rebound Effect in International Transfers of Technology 81,00
Barriers to technology transfer: A total interpretative structural model approach 81,00
Outward foreign direct investment from South Africa’s energy sector and the transfer of environmentally sound technologies to Uganda’s energy sector 81,00
Algerian renewable energy assessment: The challenge of sustainability 80,00
Technology transfer through climate change: Setting a sustainable energy pattern 79,01
Global assessment of technological innovation for climate change adaptation and mitigation in developing world 78,00
Sustainable development outcomes of coal mine methane clean development mechanism Projects in China 76,01
Renewable energy partnerships in development cooperation: Towards a relational understanding of technical assistance 76,00
Achieving the sustainable development goals: a case study of the complexity of water quality health risks in Malawi 76,00
Municipal energy policy constitution and integration process to establish sustainable energy systems - a case of the Slovenian municipality 75,01
Shaping changes through participatory processes: Local development and renewable energy in rural habitats 74,01
Identifying the underpin of green and low carbon technology innovation research: A literature review from 1994 to 2010 73,00
A Holistic Approach for Addressing the Issue of Effective Technology Transfer in the Frame of Climate Change 73,00
Technology complexity, technology transfer mechanisms and sustainable development 73,00
Could open source ecology and open source appropriate technology be used as a roadmap from technology colony? 72,00
A new model for enabling innovation in appropriate technology for sustainable development 71,00
Low Carbon Technologies for Our Cities of Future: Examining Mechanisms for Successful Transfer and Diffusion 71,00
An overview of Italian participation in afforestation and reforestation projects under the Clean Development Mechanism 70,00
Trends and challenges of sustainable energy and water research in North Africa: Sahara solar breeder concerns at the intersection of energy/water 66,01
NortheSouth partnerships for sustainable energy: Knowledgeepower relations in development assistance for renewable energy 65,00
RES technology transfer within the new climate regime: A ’’helicopter’’ view under the CDM 63,01
The Means of Implementation and the Global Partnership for Sustainable Development: What’s in it for Emerging Economies? 62,00
Developing countries’ energy needs and priorities under a sustainable development perspective: A linguistic decision support approach 60,00
The war on climate change: Ushering in sustainable development to VDCs through a technical capacity-building facility 60,00
Technological Innovation and Developmental Strategies for Sustainable Management of Aquatic Resources in Developing Countries 58,00
Technology and innovation for a green economy 57,00
Determining factors in process of socio-technical adequacy of renewable energy in Andean Communities of Salta, Argentina 56,01
Research universities, technology transfer, and job creation: what infrastructure, for what training? 55,00
Analysis of the partnership network in the clean development mechanism 54,00
A two-track CDM: improved incentives for sustainable development and offset production 53,00
Explaining differences in sub-national patterns of clean technology transfer to China and India 53,00
Stakeholder preferences towards the sustainable development of CDM projects: Lessons from biomass (rice husk) CDM project in Thailand 51,00
Technology transfer of hand pumps in rural communities of Swaziland: Towards sustainable project life cycle management 51,00
Systems analyses and the sustainable transfer of renewable energy technologies: A focus on remote areas of Africa 50,00
External sources of clean technology: Evidence from the Clean Development Mechanism 49,00
 A. Corsi et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 245 (2020) 118522 17

Table 3 (continued )

Title InOrdinatio

The clean development mechanism-catalyst for wide spread deployment of renewable energy technologies? or misnomer? 49,00
A comparative analysis of the ’development dividend’ of Clean Development Mechanism projects in six host countries 47,00
Clean development mechanism practice in China: Current status and possibilities for future regime 44,00
Promoting renewables in the energy sector of Tajikistan 44,00
Sustainable Development and Cleaner Technology in Brazilian Energy CDM Projects: Consideration of Risks 44,00
National policy and SMEs in technology transfer: the case of Israel 43,00
Strategies Against Technological Exclusion. The Contribution of the Sustainable Development Concept to the Process of Economic Inclusion of Developing 42,00
Countries
Low Carbon Growth: An Indian Perspective on Sustainability and Technology Transfer 41,00
Need for effective technology transfer to ensure sustainability of otta seal 40,00
Realising Rio principles through sustainable energy solutions: Application of small hydropower (SHP) in China and other developing countries 40,00
Regional innovation systems and sustainability - Selected examples of international discussion 39,00
Waste disposal technology transfer matching requirement clusters for waste disposal facilities in China 39,00
Energy and the World Summit on Sustainable Development: what next? 39,00
EU-MENA energy technology transfer under the CDM: Israel as a frontrunner? 36,00
Renewable energy and low carbon economy transition in India 36,00
The effectiveness of Kyoto Protocol and the legal institution for international technology transfer 35,00
Carbon market and technology transfer: statistical analysis for exploring implications 35,00
DEVELOPMENT BY TECHNOLOGY SEEDING 35,00
Establishing a space sector for sustainable development in Kenya 35,00
REDD þ and the global climate policy negotiating regimes: Challenges and opportunities for Africa 34,00
Innovative CP networks: The case of the O € KOPROFIT® network promoting innovative clean production solutions for 20 years 33,00
Technology transfer insights for new climate regime 29,00
Climate change resilience and technology transfer: The role of intellectual property 27,00
Innovation and its potential in the context of the ecological component of sustainable development 25,00
Bioenergy Options in the Industrialized and Developing World and Opportunities for the Clean Development Mechanism 24,00
Best management practices for corporate, academic and governmental transfer of sustainable technologies to developing countries 22,00
CDM sustainable technology transfer grounded in participatory in-country processes in Israel 22,00
Improving the clean development mechanism with sustainability-rating and rewarding system 19,00
Capacity building in emerging space nations: Experiences, challenges and benefits 17,00
The Montreal Protocol’s multilateral fund and sustainable development 14,00
Adapting a geographical information system-based water resource management to the needs of the Romanian water authorities 14,00
A decision support approach for the sustainable transfer of energy technologies under the Kyoto Protocol 13,00
Enhancing the sustainable development contribution of future CDM projects in Asia 12,00
Facilitating sustainable development in Chile: a survey of suitable energy technologies 10,00
International transfer of CAD/CAM construction technologies: Case study of a German-Iranian partnership 10,00
Energy, poverty and governance 8,00
Review of the 2008 UNFCCC meeting in Poznan 6,00
Shaping sustainable development strategies in Chile through CDM 6,00
An integrated strategy for urban Air Quality Management in India 3,00
Catchment processes in Southeast Asia: Atmospheric, hydrologic, erosion, nutrient cycling, and management effects 2,00
Biodiversity and international stakes: A question of access 5,00
Medical technology transfer for sustainable development: A case study of intraocular lens replacement to correct cataracts 6,00
Reconciling technological viability with social feasibility: The case of natural pozzolans for sustainable development 7,00
Bridging organisations for sustainable development and conservation: a Paraguayan case 9,00
North-south divisions in multilateral environmental agreements: Negotiating the private sector’s role in three Rio agreements 14,00
Sustaining development in the GCC countries: the impact of technology transfer 21,00
Clean Energy Technology Transfer: A Review of Programs under the UNFCCC 22,00
Towards collaborative agro-innovation in developing countries: The Caribbean perspective 22,00
World globalization, sustainable development and scientific cooperation 25,00
Transfer of Taiwanese ideas and technology to The Gambia, West Africa: A viable approach to rural development? 29,00
Making technology work for the poor: Strategies and policies for African sustainable development 30,00
Why sustainable innovations are not always adopted 34,99
Does the CDM contribute to sustainable development? Evidence from the AIJ pilot phase 35,00
An assessment of the design and effectiveness of the ASEAN Environmental Improvement Program 39,99
The DELTA programme an example of participative technology transfer approach in the south and east Mediterranean countries 46,99
Would food irradiation as a means of technology transfer assist food productivity and security in Africa and sustain its development? 48,00
The role of drying technology in sustainable development. Introduction and summary of the open forum discussion at IDS0 2002, Beijing, China 59,00
Sustainable development and globalization in a world with unequal starting points 65,00
Commercial development of environmental technologies for the automotive industry towards a new model of technological innovation 72,00
Cross cultural technology transfer of sustainable energy systems: A critical analysis 74,00
The sustainable development of local agri-food SMEs and the improvement of the Welsh farming environment 76,00
Fostering P2 practices in northwest Mexico through inter-university collaboration 76,99
Scientific communication, international cooperation and capacity building for sustainable development 79,00
Promoting sustainable community development in developing countries: The role of technology transfer 108,00
Technology transfer for sustainable development: environmentalism and entrepreneurship in Hong Kong 119,00
Towards sustainable renewable energy technology in Africa 137,99
Technology adoption and Sub-Sahara african agriculture: The sustainable development option 155,00
Technology Transfer in Digital Era: Legal Environment x
Technology Transfer to Developing Countries and Technological Development for Social Stability x
Environmental-related patent technology transfer effectiveness A comparison between Portugal and Australia using OECD data x
The Contribution of UBT for the sustainable development of Kosova x
Science and technology in the framework of the sustainable development goals x
The Social Design of Technology Transfer into the Sustainable Development Domain x

Source: Author (2019)

18 A. Corsi et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 245 (2020) 118522

APPENDIX 2

Table 4
Final portfolio (48 articles).

Title Year Inordinatio

The role of corporations in achieving ecological sustainability 1995 1671,01

Promoting sustainable energy technology transfers to developing countries through the CDM 2009 102,01
Influence of technology transfer on performance and sustainability of standard gauge railway in developing countries 2018 90,00
Sustainable development as successful technology transfer: Empowerment through teaching, learning, and using digital participatory mapping 2018 90,00
techniques in Mazvihwa, Zimbabwe
South-South Technology Transfer of Low-Carbon Innovation: Large Chinese Hydropower Dams in Cambodia 2015 84,00
Examining perspectives and dimensions of clean development mechanism A critical assessment vis-a-vis developing and least developed countries 2017 83,00
Achieving the sustainable development goals: a case study of the complexity of water quality health risks in Malawi 2016 76,00
Shaping changes through participatory processes: Local development and renewable energy in rural habitats 2015 74,01
A new model for enabling innovation in appropriate technology for sustainable development 2012 71,00
Low Carbon Technologies for Our Cities of Future: Examining Mechanisms for Successful Transfer and Diffusion 2016 71,00
An overview of Italian participation in afforestation and reforestation projects under the Clean Development Mechanism 2016 70,00
RES technology transfer within the new climate regime: A ’’helicopter’’ view under the CDM 2009 63,01
Developing countries’ energy needs and priorities under a sustainable development perspective: A linguistic decision support approach 2010 60,00
Determining factors in process of socio-technical adequacy of renewable energy in Andean Communities of Salta, Argentina 2013 56,01
A two-track CDM: improved incentives for sustainable development and offset production 2013 53,00
Stakeholder preferences towards the sustainable development of CDM projects: Lessons from biomass (rice husk) CDM project in Thailand 2011 51,00
Promoting renewables in the energy sector of Tajikistan 2012 44,00
Need for effective technology transfer to ensure sustainability of otta seal 2013 40,00
Realising Rio principles through sustainable energy solutions: Application of small hydropower (SHP) in China and other developing countries 2013 40,00
Renewable energy and low carbon economy transition in India 2010 36,00
DEVELOPMENT BY TECHNOLOGY SEEDING 2012 35,00
Establishing a space sector for sustainable development in Kenya 2012 35,00
REDD þ and the global climate policy negotiating regimes: Challenges and opportunities for Africa 2011 34,00
Bioenergy Options in the Industrialized and Developing World and Opportunities for the Clean Development Mechanism 2010 24,00
Best management practices for corporate, academic and governmental transfer of sustainable technologies to developing countries 2010 22,00
CDM sustainable technology transfer grounded in participatory in-country processes in Israel 2011 22,00
Capacity building in emerging space nations: Experiences, challenges and benefits 2010 17,00
The Montreal Protocol’s multilateral fund and sustainable development 2006 14,00
Adapting a geographical information system-based water resource management to the needs of the Romanian water authorities 2009 14,00
Enhancing the sustainable development contribution of future CDM projects in Asia 2010 12,00
Facilitating sustainable development in Chile: a survey of suitable energy technologies 2009 10,00
International transfer of CAD/CAM construction technologies: Case study of a German-Iranian partnership 2010 10,00
Shaping sustainable development strategies in Chile through CDM 2009 6,00
An integrated strategy for urban Air Quality Management in India 2009 3,00
Biodiversity and international stakes: A question of access 2005 5,00
Medical technology transfer for sustainable development: A case study of intraocular lens replacement to correct cataracts 2008 6,00
Reconciling technological viability with social feasibility: The case of natural pozzolans for sustainable development 2008 7,00
World globalization, sustainable development and scientific cooperation 2004 25,00
Transfer of Taiwanese ideas and technology to The Gambia, West Africa: A viable approach to rural development? 2004 29,00
Making technology work for the poor: Strategies and policies for African sustainable development 2004 30,00
Does the CDM contribute to sustainable development? Evidence from the AIJ pilot phase 2004 35,00
An assessment of the design and effectiveness of the ASEAN Environmental Improvement Program 2004 39,99
The DELTA programme an example of participative technology transfer approach in the south and east Mediterranean countries 2004 46,99
Would food irradiation as a means of technology transfer assist food productivity and security in Africa and sustain its development? 2004 48,00
Fostering P2 practices in northwest Mexico through inter-university collaboration 2000 76,99
Towards sustainable renewable energy technology in Africa 1994 137,99
The Contribution of UBT for the sustainable development of Kosova 2010
Science and technology in the framework of the sustainable development goals 2017

Source: Author (2019)

APPENDIX 3
 A. Corsi et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 245 (2020) 118522 19

Table 5
Central themes of the articles that presented impacts on the three dimensions of TBL (42 papers).

Approach Authors Specific themes

CDM
Climate change
Energy (Clean, bioenergy, low
carbon Renewable, SHP, PV,
wind, solar, waves, biomass)
Technology (Clean, green, low
carbon, sustainable, energy
technology)
Barrera and Schwarze (2004); Muller (2007); Doukas et al. (2009); Energy (Karakosta et al., 2011; Karakosta et al., 2010b; Van der
Paulsson (2009); Van der Gaast et al. (2009); Karakosta et al. Gaast et al., 2009; Silva Jr. et al., 2013), Renewable energy (Doukas
(2009); Teng and Zhang (2010); Kua (2010); Lybæk and Andersen et al., 2009; Flamos, 2010)
(2010); Flamos et al. (2010); Karakosta et al., 2010a; Disch (2010); Climate change (Karakosta et al., 2012; Dasgupta and Taneja, 2011;
Karakosta et al. (2011); Popp (2011); Dasgupta and Taneja (2011); Fasehun, 2015)
Parnphumeesup and Kerr (2011); Karakosta et al. (2012); Low carbono technology/energy (Lema and Lema, 2016; Van der
Torvanger et al. (2013); Kang and Park (2013); Silva Jr. et al. Gaast et al., 2009; Karakosta et al., 2009)
(2013); Bayer et al. (2014); Uddin et al. (2015); Lema and Lema Technology selection (Karakosta et al., 2011; Doukas et al., 2009)
(2016); Corradini et al. (2016); Aggarwal and Aggarwal (2017) Bioenergy (Flamos et al., 2010)
Clean technology (Silva Jr. et al., 2013)
Coal mine methane (Uddin et al., 2015)
Forestry Projects (Corradini et al., 2016)
Photovoltaic solar, PHV (Lema and Lema, 2016)
Kline et al. (2004); Wagner (2007); Lovett et al. (2009); Flamos and Begg (2010); Karakosta et al., 2010b; Azam (2011); Dasgupta and
Taneja (2011); Bakhtina (2011); Popp (2011); Ma (2010); Karakosta et al. (2012); Belman Inbal and Tzachor (2013); Adenle et al.
(2015); Fasehun (2015); Karakosta (2016); Mehta et al. (2016); Basu (2018)
Chendo (1994); Green (1999); Kline et al. (2004); Spalding-Fecher Energy technology selection (Karakosta et al., 2008, 2011;
et al. (2005); O’Brien et al. (2007); Karakosta et al. (2008); Doukas Karakosta, 2016; Doukas et al., 2009)
et al. (2009); Karakosta and Psarras (2009); Ravindranath and Climate change (Kline et al., 2004; Karakosta et al., 2010b)
Balachandra (2009); Karakosta et al. (2009); Van der Gaast et al. Bioenergy (Flamos et al., 2010)
(2009); Brent and Kruger (2009); Flamos et al. (2010); Karakosta Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) (O’Brien et al., 2007)
et al., 2010b; Shukla et al. (2010); Karakosta and Askounis (2010); Municipal policy (Kostevsek et al., 2016)
Flamos (2010); Parnphumeesup and Kerr (2011); Da et al. (2011); Environmental policy (Verdolini and Bosetti, 2017)
Stambouli (2011); Doukas et al. (2012); Silva et al. (2013); Liu et al. Greenhouse gases e GHG (Sarkodie and Strezov, 2019)
(2013); Blohmke (2014); Stambouli et al. (2014); Belmonte et al.
(2015); Kruckenberg (2015a,b); Kostevsek et al. (2016); Karakosta
(2016); Manyuchi (2017); Verdolini and Bosetti (2017); Bruckman
et al. (2018); Lema et al. (2018); Sarkodie and Strezov (2019)
Green (1999); Funtowicz et al. (1999); Pakowski (2003); Tewfik Technology selection (Karakosta et al., 2008, 2011; Karakosta,
et al. (2004); Sidle et al. (2006); Mickwitz et al. (2008); Karakosta 2016; Green, 1999; Doukas et al., 2009)
et al. (2008); Harris et al. (2008); Williams (2008); Van der Gaast System technology (Mobile database) (Pearce et al., 2012);
et al. (2009); Soutter et al. (2008); Doukas et al. (2009); Jason et al. Management of water resources (Soutter et al., 2008); Information
(2010); Pearce et al. (2012); Tschiggerl and Wolf (2012); Waswa and communication technology - ICT (Mulamula and Amadi-
and Juma (2012); Silva et al. (2013); Baraki and Brent (2013); Echendu, 2017); OKOPROFIT system (Tschiggerl and Wolf, 2012);
Pinard (2013); Escalante et al. (2013); Shi and Lai (2013); Adenle Participatory mapping - GPS, remote sensing satellite (Eitzel et al.,
et al. (2015); Kruckenberg (2015a,b); Urban et al. (2015); 2018)
Karakosta (2016); Lema and Lema (2016); Mulamula and Amadi- Civil construction technology (Nasri et al., 2010); Industrialization
Echendu (2017); Manyuchi (2017); Zhang et al. (2017); Basu of the construction sector (Zhang et al., 2017); Ciment e Natural
(2018); Chege et al. (2018); Morgera and Ntona (2018) Pozolans (Harris et al., 2008)
Automotive industry technology (Gallagher, 2006); Zinc Air Fuel
Cells e ZAFC
Agricultural technology (Adenle et al., 2015); Food irradiation
(Tewfik et al., (2004)
Spacial technology (Jason et al., 2010; Waswa and Juma, 2012)
Drying technology (Pakowski, 2003)
Catchment water processes technology (Sidle et al., 2006)
Health care technology (Intraocular lenses) (Williams, 2008)
Hand pumps (Baraki and Brent, 2013)
Solar water heater (Escalante et al., 2013)
Sealing Technology Otta (Pinard, 2013)
Marine Technology (Morgera and Ntona, 2018)
Railroad technology (Chege et al., 2018)

Source: Authors (2019)

References Autio, E., Laamanen, T., 1995. Measurement and evaluation of technology transfer:
review of technology transfer mechanisms and indicators. International Journal
of Technology Transfer Management 10 (6), 643e664.
Li-Hua, R., 2006. Examining the appropriateness and effectiveness of technology
Azam, M.M., 2011. Climate change resilience and technology transfer: the role of
transfer in China. J. Technol. Manag. China 1 (2), 208e223. https://doi.org/10.
intellectual property. Nord. J. Int. Law 80 (4), 485e505. https://doi.org/10.1163/
1108/17468770610670992.
157181011x598445.
Abdul Wahab, S., Rose, R.C., Osman, S.I.W., 2012. Defining the concepts of tech-
Baker, K.M., Edmonds, R.L., 2004. Transfer of Taiwanese ideas and technology to the
nology and technology transfer: a literature analysis. Int. Bus. Res. 5 (1), 61e71.
Gambia, West Africa: a viable approach to rural development? Geogr. J. 170 (3),
https://doi.org/10.5539/ibr.v5n1p61.
189e211. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0016-7398.2004.00120.x.
Adenle, A.A., Azadi, H., Arbiol, J., 2015. Global assessment of technological innova-
Bakhtina, V.A., 2011. Innovation and its potential in the context of the ecological
tion for climate change adaptation and mitigation in developing world.
component of sustainable development. Sustainability Accounting, Manage-
J. Environ. Manag. 161, 261e275. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2015.05.040.
ment and Policy Journal 2 (2), 248e262. https://doi.org/10.1108/
Aggarwal, P., Aggarwal, R., 2017. Examining perspectives and dimensions of clean
20408021111185402.
development mechanism A critical assessment vis-a-vis developing and least
Baraki, Y.A., Brent, A.C., 2013. Technology transfer of hand pumps in rural com-
developed countries. International Journal Of Law And Management 59 (1),
munities of Swaziland: towards sustainable project life cycle management.
82e101. https://doi.org/10.1108/ijlma-09-2015-0050.
Technol. Soc. 35 (4), 258e266. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techsoc.2013.10.001.
Ahmed, A., 2004. Making technology work for the poor: strategies and policies for
Barrera, J., Schwarze, R., 2004. Does the CDM contribute to sustainable develop-
African sustainable development. Int. J. Technol. Policy Manag. 4 (1). https://doi.
ment? Evidence from the AIJ pilot phase. Int. J. Sustain. Dev. 7 (4), 353e368.
org/10.1504/ijtpm.2004.004563.
https://doi.org/10.1504/ijsd.2004.006414.
Akbar, M., Irohara, T., 2018. Scheduling for sustainable manufacturing: a review.
Basu, A., 2018. Grasping climate technology transfer: a brief discussion on Indian
J. Clean. Prod. 205, 866e883. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.09.100.
20 A. Corsi et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 245 (2020) 118522
practice. Journal of Intellectual Property Rights 23, 51e59.
Bayer, P., Urpelainen, J., Xu, A., 2014. Explaining differences in sub-national patterns
of clean technology transfer to China and India. Int. Environ. Agreements Polit.
Law Econ. 16 (2), 261e283. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10784-014-9257-2.
Belman Inbal, A., Tzachor, A., 2013. National policy and SMEs in technology transfer:
the case of Israel. Clim. Policy 15 (1), 88e102. https://doi.org/10.1080/
14693062.2013.770299.
Belmonte, S., Escalante, K.N., Franco, J., 2015. Shaping changes through participatory
processes: local development and renewable energy in rural habitats. Renew.
Sustain. Energy Rev. 45, 278e289. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2015.01.038.
Bhinge, R., Moser, R., Moser, E., Lanza, G., Dornfeld, D., 2015. Sustainability opti-
mization for global supply chain decision-making. Procedia Cirp 26, 323e328.
In: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procir.2014.07.105.
Blohmke, J., 2014. Technology complexity, technology transfer mechanisms and
sustainable development. Energy for Sustainable Development 23, 237e246.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esd.2014.09.003.
Bolay, J.C., 2004. World globalization, sustainable development and scientific
cooperation. Int. J. Sustain. Dev. 7 (2), 99e120. https://doi.org/10.1504/ijsd.2004.
005366.
Bonnett, M., 2006. Education for sustainability as a frame of mind. Environ. Educ.
Res. 12 (3e4), 265e276. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504620600942683.
Bonnett, M., 2013. Sustainable development, environmental education, and the
significance of being in place. Curric. J. 24 (2), 250e271. https://doi.org/10.1080/
09585176.2013.792672.
Bozeman, B., 2000. Technology transfer and public policy: a review of research and
theory. Res. Policy 29 (4e5), 627e655. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0048-7333(99)
00093-1.
Brent, A.C., Kruger, W.J.L., 2009. Systems analyses and the sustainable transfer of
renewable energy technologies: a focus on remote areas of Africa. Renew. En-
ergy 34 (7), 1774e1781. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2008.10.012.
Bruckman, V., Haruthaithanasan, M., Miller, R., Terada, T., Brenner, A.-K., Kraxner, F.,
Flaspohler, D., 2018. Sustainable forest bioenergy development strategies in
indochina: collaborative effort to establish regional policies. Forests 9 (4), 223.
https://doi.org/10.3390/f9040223.
Buratti, N., Penco, L., 2001. Assisted technology transfer to SMEs: lessons from an
exemplary case. Technovation 21 (1), 35e43. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0166-
4972(00)00015-8.
Campos, E.A.R., Pagani, R.N., Resende, L.M., Pontes, J., 2018. Construction and
qualitative assessment of a bibliographic portfolio using the methodology
Methodi Ordinatio. Scientometrics 116 (2), 815e842. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s11192-018-2798-3.
Chege, S.M., Wang, D., Shaldon, L.S., Obadia, K.B., 2018. Influence of technology
transfer on performance and sustainability of standard gauge railway in
developing countries. Technol. Soc. 56, 79e92. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.techsoc.2018.09.007.
Chendo, M.A.C., 1994. Towards sustainable renewable energy technology in Africa.
Energy Convers. Manag. 35 (12), 1173e1190. https://doi.org/10.1016/0196-
8904(94)90020-5.
Corradini, G., Brotto, L., Ciccarese, L., Penttenella, D., 2016. An overview of Italian
participation in afforestation and reforestation projects under the Clean
Development Mechanism. iFor. Biogeosci. For. 9 (5), 720e728. https://doi.org/
10.3832/ifor1654-009.
Cunha, L., Ceryno, P., Leiras, A., 2019. Social supply chain risk management: a tax-
onomy, a framework and a research agenda. J. Clean. Prod. 220, 1101e1110.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.02.183.
Da, Z., Xiliang, Z., Jiankun, H., Qimin, C., 2011. Offshore wind energy development in
China: current status and future perspective. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 15 (9),
4673e4684. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2011.07.084.
da Silva, V.L., Kovaleski, J.L., Pagani, R.N., 2018. Technology transfer in the supply
chain oriented to industry 4.0: a literature review. Technol. Anal. Strateg.
Manag. 31 (5), 546e562. https://doi.org/10.1080/09537325.2018.1524135.
Dasgupta, P., Taneja, N., 2011. Low carbon growth: an Indian perspective on sus-
tainability and technology transfer. Problemy Ekorozwoju 6 (1), 65e74.
Disch, D., 2010. A comparative analysis of the “development dividend” of Clean
Development Mechanism projects in six host countries. Clim. Dev. 2 (1), 50e64.
https://doi.org/10.3763/cdev.2010.0034.
Doukas, H., Karakosta, C., Psarras, J., 2009. RES technology transfer within the new
climate regime: a ’’helicopter’’ view under the CDM. Renew. Sustain. Energy
Rev. 13 (5), 1138e1143. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2008.05.002.
Doukas, H., Marinakis, V., Karakosta, C., Psarras, J., 2012. Promoting renewables in
the energy sector of Tajikistan. Renew. Energy 39 (1), 411e418. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.renene.2011.09.007.
Durosomo, B., 1993. Technology adoption and Sub-Sahara african agriculture: the
sustainable development option. Agric. Hum. Val. 10 (4), 58e70. https://doi.org/
10.1007/bf02217561.
ECOSOC (United Nations Economic and Social Council), 2016. Report of the inter-
agency and expert group on sustainable development goal indicators. Avail-
able in: http://ggim.un.org/knowledgebase/KnowledgebaseArticle51479.aspx.
Eitzel, M.V., Mhike Hove, E., Solera, J., Madzoro, S., Changarara, A., Ndlovu, D., et al.,
2018. Sustainable development as successful technology transfer: empower-
ment through teaching, learning, and using digital participatory mapping
techniques in Mazvihwa, Zimbabwe. Development Engineerin 3, 196e208.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.deveng.2018.07.001.
Elkington, J., 1997. Cannibals with Forks: the Triple Bottom Line of 21st Century.
Capstone, Oxford, UK, ISBN 1-900961-27-X.
Escalante, K.N., Belmonte, S., Gea, M.D., 2013. Determining factors in process of
socio-technical adequacy of renewable energy in Andean Communities of Salta,
Argentina. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 22, 275e288. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
rser.2013.01.054.
Fasehun, A.O., 2015. The war on climate change: ushering in sustainable develop-
ment to VDCs through a technical capacity-building facility. Environ. Claims J.
27 (3), 196e225. https://doi.org/10.1080/10406026.2015.1062666.
Feil, A., Schreiber, D., Haetinger, C., Strasburg, V., Barkert, C., 2019. Sustainability
indicators for industrial organizations: systematic review of literature. Sus-
tainability 11 (3), 854. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11030854.
Flamos, A., 2010. The clean development mechanismdcatalyst for wide spread
deployment of renewable energy technologies? or misnomer? Environ. Dev.
Sustain. 12 (1), 89e102. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-008-9182-z.
Flamos, A., Begg, K., 2010. Technology transfer insights for new climate regime.
Environ. Dev. Sustain. 12 (1), 19e33. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-008-9177-9.
Flamos, A., Georgallis, P.G., Psarras, J., 2010. Bioenergy options in the industrialized
and developing world and opportunities for the clean development mecha-
nism. Int. J. Green Energy 7 (6), 647e661. https://doi.org/10.1080/
15435075.2010.529777.
Funtowicz, S., O’Connor, M., Ravetz, J., 1999. Scientific communication, international
cooperation and capacity building for sustainable development. Int. J. Sustain.
Dev. 2 (3), 363. https://doi.org/10.1504/ijsd.1999.004336.
Gallagher, K.S., 2006. Limits to leapfrogging in energy technologies? Evidence from
the Chinese automobile industry. Energy Policy 34 (4), 383e394. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.enpol.2004.06.005.
Gao, L.X., Melero, I., Sese, F.J., 2019. Multichannel integration along the customer
journey: a systematic review and research agenda. Serv. Ind. J. https://doi.org/
10.1080/02642069.2019.1652600.
Gopalakrishnan, S., Santoro, M., 2004. Distinguishing between knowledge transfer
and technology transfer activities: the role of key organizational factors. IEEE
Trans. Eng. Manag. 51 (1), 57e69. https://doi.org/10.1109/tem.2003.822461.
Green, D., 1999. Cross cultural technology transfer of sustainable energy systems: a
critical analysis. Renew. Energy 16 (1e4), 1133e1137. https://doi.org/10.1016/
s0960-1481(98)00443-1.
Grosse, R., 1996. International technology transfer in services. J. Int. Bus. Stud. 27
(4), 781e800. https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.jibs.8490153.
Günsel, A., 2015. Research on effectiveness of technology transfer from a knowledge
based perspective. Procedia - Social And Behavioral Sciences 207, 777e785.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.10.165.
Hajrizi, E., Stapleton, L., Kopacek, P., 2010. The Contribution of UBT for the sus-
tainable development of Kosova. IFAC Proceedings Volumes 43 (25), 47e52.
https://doi.org/10.3182/20101027-3-xk-4018.00011.
Harris, R.A., Eatmon Jr., T.D., Seifert, C.W.A., 2008. Reconciling technological viability
with social feasibility: the case of natural pozzolans for sustainable develop-
ment. World Rev. Sci. Technol. Sustain. Dev. 5 (1), 49. https://doi.org/10.1504/
wrstsd.2008.017812.
Higgins, J.P.T., Green, S. (Eds.), 2011. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of
Interventions, vol. 4. Available from. http://handbook.cochrane.org.
Holm, R., Wandschneider, P., Felsot, A., Msilimba, G., 2016. Achieving the sustainable
development goals: a case study of the complexity of water quality health risks
in Malawi. J. Health Popul. Nutr. 35 (1) https://doi.org/10.1186/s41043-016-
0057-x.
Imaz, M., Sheinbaum, C., 2017. Science and technology in the framework of the
sustainable development goals. World Journal of Science, Technology and
Sustainable Development 14 (1), 2e17. https://doi.org/10.1108/wjstsd-04-2016-
0030.
Ismail, M., Hamzah, S.R., Bebenroth, R., 2018. Differentiating knowledge transfer
and technology transfer. European Journal of Training and Development 42 (9),
611e628. https://doi.org/10.1108/ejtd-04-2018-0042.
IUCN (International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources), with
UNEP, WWF, FAO and UNESCO, 1980. World conservation strategy: living
resource conservation for sustainable development. Available in: https://
portals.iucn.org/library/efiles/documents/wcs-004.pdf.
Jason, S., da Silva Curiel, A., Liddle, D., Chizea, F., Leloglu, U.M., Helvaci, M., et al.,
2010. Capacity building in emerging space nations: experiences, challenges and
benefits. Adv. Space Res. 46 (5), 571e581. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.asr.2010.03.003.
Kang, M.J., Park, J., 2013. Analysis of the partnership network in the clean devel-
opment mechanism. Energy Policy 52, 543e553. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.enpol.2012.10.005.
Karakosta, C., 2016. A holistic approach for addressing the issue of effective tech-
nology transfer in the frame of climate change. Energies 9 (7), 503. https://
doi.org/10.3390/en9070503.
Karakosta, C., Askounis, D., 2010. Developing countries’ energy needs and priorities
under a sustainable development perspective: a linguistic decision support
approach. Energy for Sustainable Development 14 (4), 330e338. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.esd.2010.07.008.
Karakosta, C., Psarras, J., 2009. Facilitating sustainable development in Chile: a
survey of suitable energy technologies. Int. J. Sustain. Dev. World Ecol. 16 (5),
322e331. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504500903217290.
Karakosta, C., Doukas, H., Psarras, J., 2008. A decision support approach for the
sustainable transfer of energy technologies under the kyoto protocol. Am. J.
Appl. Sci. 5 (12) https://doi.org/10.3844/ajassp.2008.1720.1729.
Karakosta, C., Doukas, H., Psarras, J., 2009. Shaping sustainable development stra-
tegies in Chile through CDM. International Journal of Climate Change Strategies
 A. Corsi et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 245 (2020) 118522
and Management 1 (4), 382e399. https://doi.org/10.1108/17568690911002906.
Karakosta, C., Doukas, H., Psarras, J., 2010. EUeMENA energy technology transfer
under the CDM: Israel as a frontrunner? Energy Policy 38 (5), 2455e2462.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2009.12.039.
Karakosta, C., Doukas, H., Psarras, J., 2010b. Technology transfer through climate
change: setting a sustainable energy pattern. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 14 (6),
1546e1557. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2010.02.001.
Karakosta, C., Doukas, H., Psarras, J., 2011. CDM sustainable technology transfer
grounded in participatory in-country processes in Israel. Int. J. Sustain. Soc. 3
(3), 225. https://doi.org/10.1504/ijssoc.2011.041265.
Karakosta, C., Doukas, H., Psarras, J., 2012. Carbon market and technology transfer:
statistical analysis for exploring implications. Int. J. Sustain. Dev. World Ecol. 19
(4), 311e320. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504509.2011.644638.
Kitchenham, B., 2004. Procedures for Performing Systematic Reviews, vol. 33. Keele,
UK, pp. 1e26.
Kitchenham, B., Pearl Brereton, O., Budgen, D., Turner, M., Bailey, J., Linkman, S.,
2009. Systematic literature reviews in software engineering e a systematic
literature review. Inf. Softw. Technol. 51 (1), 7e15. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.infsof.2008.09.009.
Kline, D., Vimmerstedt, L., Benioff, R., 2004. Clean energy technology transfer: a
review of programs under the UNFCCC. Mitig. Adapt. Strategies Glob. Change 9
(1), 1e35. https://doi.org/10.1023/b:miti.0000009853.74057.bf.
Kostevsek, A., Petek, J., Klemes, J.J., Varbanov, P., 2016. Municipal energy policy
constitution and integration process to establish sustainable energy systems e
a case of the Slovenian municipality. J. Clean. Prod. 120, 31e42. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.01.046.
Kruckenberg, L.J., 2015a. NortheSouth partnerships for sustainable energy:
knowledgeepower relations in development assistance for renewable energy.
Energy for Sustainable Development 29, 91e99. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.esd.2015.10.003.
Kruckenberg, L.J., 2015b. Renewable energy partnerships in development cooper-
ation: towards a relational understanding of technical assistance. Energy Policy
77, 11e20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2014.11.004.
Kua, H.W., 2010. Improving the clean development mechanism with sustainability-
rating and rewarding system. Progress in Industrial Ecology, An International
Journal 7 (1), 35. https://doi.org/10.1504/pie.2010.034507.
Kuriqi, A., Pinheiro, A.N., Sordo-Ward, A., Garrote, L., 2017. Trade-off between
environmental flow policy and run-of-river hydropower generation in medi-
terranean climate. European Water 60, 123e130.
Kuriqi, A., Pinheiro, A.N., Sordo-Ward, A., Garrote, L., 2019. Influence of hydrologi-
cally based environmental flow methods on flow alteration and energy pro-
duction in a run-of-river hydropower plant. J. Clean. Prod. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.05.358.
Kırlı, M.S., Fahrioglu, M., 2018. Sustainable development of Turkey: deployment of
geothermal resources for carbon capture, utilization, and storage. Energy
Sources, Part A Recovery, Util. Environ. Eff. 41 (14), 1739e1751. https://doi.org/
10.1080/15567036.2018.1549149.
Labuschagne, C., Brent, A.C., van Erck, R.P.G., 2005. Assessing the sustainability
performances of industries. J. Clean. Prod. 13 (4), 373e385. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.jclepro.2003.10.007.
Lema, A., Lema, R., 2016. Low-carbon innovation and technology transfer in late-
comer countries: insights from solar PV in the clean development mechanism.
Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 104, 223e236. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.techfore.2015.10.019.
Lema, R., Hanlin, R., Hansen, U.E., Nzila, C., 2018. Renewable electrification and local
capability formation: linkages and interactive learning. Energy Policy 117,
326e339. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2018.02.011.
Lim, C.I., Biswas, W.K., 2017. Development of triple bottom line indicators for sus-
tainability assessment framework of Malaysian palm oil industry. Clean Tech-
nol. Environ. Policy 20 (3), 539e560. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10098-017-1453-
7.
Lin, B., 2003. Technology transfer as technological learning: a source of competitive
advantage for firms with limited R&D resources. R D Manag. 33 (3), 327e341.
https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9310.00301.
Liu, H., Esser, L.J., Whiting, K., 2013. Realising Rio principles through sustainable
energy solutions: application of small hydropower (SHP) in China and other
developing countries. Int. J. Technol. Manag. Sustain. Dev. 12 (3), 281e300.
https://doi.org/10.1386/tmsd.12.3.281_1.
Lovett, J.C., Hofman, P.S., Morsink, K., Torres, A.B., Clancy, J.S., Krabbendam, K., 2009.
Review of the 2008 UNFCCC meeting in poznan. Energy Policy 37 (9),
3701e3705. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2009.05.072.
Luken, R., Grof, T., 2006. The Montreal Protocol’s multilateral fund and sustainable
development. Ecol. Econ. 56 (2), 241e255. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.
2004.04.013.
Lybaek, R., Andersen, J., 2010. Enhancing the sustainable development contribution
of future CDM projects in Asia. Progress In Industrial Ecology, An International
Journal 7 (1), 6. https://doi.org/10.1504/pie.2010.034506.
Ma, Z.F., 2010. The effectiveness of Kyoto Protocol and the legal institution for in-
ternational technology transfer. J. Technol. Transf. 37 (1), 75e97. https://doi.org/
10.1007/s10961-010-9190-7.
Madlener, R., Sunak, Y., 2011. Impacts of urbanization on urban structures and
energy demand: what can we learn for urban energy planning and urbanization
management? Sustainable Cities And Society 1 (1), 45e53. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.scs.2010.08.006.
Manyuchi, A.E., 2017. Outward foreign direct investment from South Africa’s energy
21
sector and the transfer of environmentally sound technologies to Uganda’s
energy sector. African Journal of Science, Technology, Innovation and Devel-
opment 9 (3), 303e314. https://doi.org/10.1080/20421338.2017.1322769.
Martins, V.W.B., Rampasso, I.S., Anholon, R., Quelhas, O.L.G., Leal Filho, W., 2019.
Knowledge management in the context of sustainability: literature review and
opportunities for future research. J. Clean. Prod. 229, 489e500. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.04.354.
Maskus, K., 2003. Encouraging International Technology Transfer. UNCTAD/ICTSD
Capacity Building Project, Geneva, Switzerland.
Mehta, C., Shankar, U., Bandopadhyay, T.K., 2016. Low carbon technologies for Our
cities of future: examining mechanisms for successful transfer and diffusion.
India Q.: J. Int. Aff. 72 (4), 410e422. https://doi.org/10.1177/0974928416671590.
Menon-Choudhary, D., Shukla, P.R., 2009. An integrated strategy for urban Air
Quality Management in India. Int. J. Environ. Pollut. 39 (3/4), 233. https://
doi.org/10.1504/ijep.2009.028688.
Mickwitz, P., Hyva €ttinen, H., Kivimaa, P., 2008. The role of policy instruments in the
innovation and diffusion of environmentally friendlier technologies: popular
claims versus case study experiences. J. Clean. Prod. 16 (1), S162eS170. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2007.10.012.
Morgera, E., Ntona, M., 2018. Linking small-scale fisheries to international obliga-
tions on marine technology transfer. Mar. Policy 93, 295e306. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.marpol.2017.07.021.
Moseson, A.J., Lama, L., Tangorra, J., 2012. Development by technology seeding. J. Int.
Dev. 27 (4), 489e503. https://doi.org/10.1002/jid.2874.
Mulamula, G., Amadi-Echendu, J., 2017. An examination of the potential links be-
tween ict technology transfer and sustainable development. Int. J. Technol.
Manag. Sustain. Dev. 16 (2), 119e139. https://doi.org/10.1386/tmsd.16.2.119_1.
Muller, A., 2007. How to make the clean development mechanism sustainabledthe
potential of rent extraction. Energy Policy 35 (6), 3203e3212. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.enpol.2006.11.016.
Muller, M.F., Esmanioto, F., Huber, N., Loures, E.R., Junior, O.C., 2019. A systematic
literature review of interoperability in the green building information modeling
lifecycle. J. Clean. Prod. 223, 397e412.
Nasri, E., Pegels, G., Mostofinejad, D., Chini, A., 2010. International transfer of CAD/
CAM construction technologies: case study of a German-Iranian partnership.
International Journal of Construction Management 10 (2), 71e92. https://
doi.org/10.1080/15623599.2010.10773145.
Nhamo, G., 2011. REDD þ and the global climate policy negotiating regimes: chal-
lenges and opportunities for Africa. S. Afr. J. Int. Afr. 18 (3), 385e406. https://doi.
org/10.1080/10220461.2011.622954.
NHMRC (National Health and Medical Research Council), 1999. How to Review the
Evidence: Systematic Identification and Review of the Scientific Literature:
Handbook Series on Preparing Clinical Practice Guidelines. Endorsed November,
Australia.
O’Brien, G., O’Keefe, P., Rose, J., 2007. Energy, poverty and governance. Int. J. Environ.
Stud. 605e616. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207230600841385.
Okoli, C., Schabram, K., 2010. A guide to conducting a systematic literature review of
information systems research. Ssrn Electronic Journal 1e51. https://doi.org/10.
2139/ssrn.1954824.
Olsen, K.H., Bakhtiari, F., Duggal, V.K., Fenhann, J.V., 2019. Sustainability labelling as
a tool for reporting the sustainable development impacts of climate actions
relevant to Article 6 of the Paris Agreement. Int. Environ. Agreements Polit. Law
Econ. 19 (2), 225e251. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10784-018-09428-1.
Pagani, R.N., Kovaleski, J.L., Resende, L.M., 2015. Methodi Ordinatio: a proposed
methodology to select and rank relevant scientific papers encompassing the
impact factor, number of citation, and year of publication. Scientometrics 105
(3), 2109e2135. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-015-1744-x.
Pagani, R.N., Zammar, G., Kovaleski, J.L., Resende, L.M., 2016. Technology transfer
models: typology and a generic model. Int. J. Technol. Transf. Commer. 14 (1),
20-20. https://doi.org/10.1504/ijttc.2016.079923.
Pagani, R.N., Kovaleski, J.L., Resende, L.M., 2016. El contexto de la innovacio  n social
en Latinoame rica. In: Fern andez, C.M.F.J., Gierhake, K., Martos, M.S. (Eds.),
Innovacio n Social y Conocimiento Local en Latinoame rica. Servizo de Pub-
licacions da Universidade de Vigo, pp. 23e48.
Pagani, R.N., Kovaleski, J.L., Resende, L.M., 2017. Tics na composiç~ ao da methodi
ordinatio: construça ~o de portfo lio bibliogr
afico sobre modelos de transfere ^ncia
de tecnologia. Cie ^ncia Informaça ~o 46 (2). https://doi.org/10.18225/ci.inf.v47i1.
1886.
Pakowski, Z., 2003. The role of drying technology in sustainable development.
Introduction and summary of the open forum discussion at IDS’2002, beijing,
China. Dry. Technol. 21 (1), 175e181. https://doi.org/10.1081/drt-120017290.
Palma, S.D., Zein, K., 2004. The DELTA programme an example of participative
technology transfer approach in the south and east Mediterranean countries.
J. Clean. Prod. 12 (3), 257e268. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0959-6526(03)00093-3.
Park, J., 2018. The clean development mechanism (CDM) as a financial platform for
North Korea’s development. J. Asia Pac. Econ. 1e15. https://doi.org/10.1080/
13547860.2018.1431080.
Parnphumeesup, P., Kerr, S.A., 2011. Stakeholder preferences towards the sustain-
able development of CDM projects: lessons from biomass (rice husk) CDM
project in Thailand. Energy Policy 39 (6), 3591e3601. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
enpol.2011.03.060.
Paulsson, E., 2009. A review of the CDM literature: from fine-tuning to critical
scrutiny? Int. Environ. Agreements Polit. Law Econ. 9 (1), 63e80. https://doi.
org/10.1007/s10784-008-9088-0.
Pearce, J., Albritton, S., Grant, G., Steed, G., Zelenika, I., 2012. A new model for
22 A. Corsi et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 245 (2020) 118522
enabling innovation in appropriate technology for sustainable development.
Sustain. Sci. Pract. Policy 8 (2), 42e53. https://doi.org/10.1080/15487733.2012.
11908095.
Pinard, M.I., 2013. Need for effective technology transfer to ensure sustainability of
Otta seal. Transp. Res. Rec.: Journal of the Transportation Research Board 2349
(1), 129e135. https://doi.org/10.3141/2349-15.
Pinto, M.M.A., Kovaleski, J.L., Yoshino, R.T., Pagani, R.N., 2019. Knowledge and
technology transfer influencing the process of innovation in green supply chain
management: a multicriteria model based on the DEMATEL method. Sustain-
ability 11 (12), 3485. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11123485.
Popp, D., 2011. International technology transfer, climate change, and the clean
development mechanism. Rev. Environ. Econ. Policy 5 (1), 131e152. https://
doi.org/10.1093/reep/req018.
Rafiaani, P., Kuppens, T., Dael, M.V., Azadi, H., Lebailly, P., Passel, S.V., 2018. Social
sustainability assessments in the biobased economy: towards a systemic
approach. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 82, 1839e1853. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.rser.2017.06.118.
Ravindranath, N.H., Balachandra, P., 2009. Sustainable bioenergy for India: tech-
nical, economic and policy analysis. Energy 34 (8), 1003e1013. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.energy.2008.12.012.
Rochon, G.L., Niyogi, D., Fall, S., Quansah, J.E., Biehl, L., Araya, B., et al., 2009. Best
management practices for corporate, academic and governmental transfer of
sustainable technologies to developing countries. Clean Technol. Environ. Policy
12 (1), 19e30. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10098-009-0218-3.
Rogers, E.M., Takegami, S., Yin, J., 2001. Lessons learned about technology transfer.
Technovation 21 (4), 253e261. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0166-4972(00)00039-0.
Sarkodie, S.A., Strezov, V., 2019. Effect of foreign direct investments, economic
development and energy consumption on greenhouse gas emissions in devel-
oping countries. Sci. Total Environ. 646, 862e871. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.scitotenv.2018.07.365.
Seuring, S., 2013. A review of modeling approaches for sustainable supply chain
management. Decis. Support Syst. 54 (4), 1513e1520. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
dss.2012.05.053.
Shah, M.M., 2008. Sustainable development. Encyclopedia Of Ecology 3443e3446.
https://doi.org/10.1016/b978-008045405-4.00633-9.
Shao, G., Li, F., Tang, L., 2011. Multidisciplinary perspectives on sustainable devel-
opment. Int. J. Sustain. Dev. World Ecol. 18 (3), 187e189. https://doi.org/10.1080/
13504509.2011.572304.
Shi, Q., Lai, X., 2013. Identifying the underpin of green and low carbon technology
innovation research: a literature review from 1994 to 2010. Technol. Forecast.
Soc. Chang. 80 (5), 839e864. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2012.09.002.
Shrivastava, P., 1995. The role of corporations in achieving ecological sustainability.
Acad. Manag. Rev. 20 (4), 936e960. https://doi.org/10.2307/258961.
Shukla, P.R., Dhar, S., Fujino, J., 2010. Renewable energy and low carbon economy
transition in India. J. Renew. Sustain. Energy 2 (3), 031005. https://doi.org/
10.1063/1.3411001.
Sidle, R.C., Tani, M., Ziegler, A.D., 2006. Catchment processes in Southeast Asia:
atmospheric, hydrologic, erosion, nutrient cycling, and management effects.
For. Ecol. Manag. 224 (1e2), 1e4. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2005.12.002.
Silva Jr., A.C., Andrade, J.C.S., Leao, E.B. de S., Wu, D.D., 2013. Sustainable develop-
ment and cleaner technology in Brazilian energy CDM projects: consideration
of risks. Hum. Ecol. Risk Assess. Int. J. 19 (5), 1338e1358. https://doi.org/
10.1080/10807039.2012.729400.
Soutter, M., Alexandrescu, M., Schenk, C., Drobot, R., 2008. Adapting a geographical
information system-based water resource management to the needs of the
Romanian water authorities. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Control Ser. 16, 33e41. https://
doi.org/10.1007/s11356-008-0065-5.
Souza, J.T.D., Francisco, A.C.D., Piekarski, C.M., Prado, G.F.D., 2019. Data mining and
machine learning to promote smart cities: a systematic review from 2000 to
2018. Sustainability 11, 1077.
Spalding-Fecher, R., Winkler, H., Mwakasonda, S., 2005. Energy and the world
summit on sustainable development: what next? Energy Policy 33 (1), 99e112.
https://doi.org/10.1016/s0301-4215(03)00203-9.
Stables, A., 2013. The unsustainability imperative? Problems with ‘sustainability’
and ‘sustainable development’ as regulative ideals. Environ. Educ. Res. 19 (2),
177e186. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504622.2012.729813.
Stambouli, A.B., 2011. Algerian renewable energy assessment: the challenge of
sustainability. Energy Policy 39 (8), 4507e4519. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.enpol.2010.10.005.
Stambouli, A.B., Khiat, Z., Flazi, S., Tanemoto, H., Nakajima, M., Isoda, H., et al., 2014.
Trends and challenges of sustainable energy and water research in North Africa:
sahara solar breeder concerns at the intersection of energy/water. Renew.
Sustain. Energy Rev. 30, 912e922. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2013.11.042.
Stevenson, R.S., 2004. An assessment of the design and effectiveness of the ASEAN
Environmental Improvement Program. J. Clean. Prod. 12 (3), 227e236. https://
doi.org/10.1016/s0959-6526(03)00096-9.
Svensson, G., Ferro, C., Høgevold, N., Padin, C., Carlos Sosa Varela, J., Sarstedt, M.,
2018. Framing the triple bottom line approach: direct and mediation effects
between economic, social and environmental elements. J. Clean. Prod. 197,
972e991. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.06.226.
Teng, F., Zhang, X., 2010. Clean development mechanism practice in China: current
status and possibilities for future regime. Energy 35 (11), 4328e4335. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2009.04.033.
Tewfik, I., Amuna, P., Zotor, F., 2004. Would food irradiation as a means of tech-
nology transfer assist food productivity and security in Africa and sustain its
development? Int. J. Technol. Policy Manag. 4 (1), 44. https://doi.org/10.1504/
ijtpm.2004.004566.
Torvanger, A., Shrivastava, M.K., Pandey, N., Tørnblad, S.H., 2013. A two-track CDM:
improved incentives for sustainable development and offset production. Clim.
Policy 13 (4), 471e489. https://doi.org/10.1080/14693062.2013.781446.
Tranfield, D., Denyer, D., Smart, P., 2003. Towards a methodology for developing
evidence-informed management knowledge by means of systematic review. Br.
J. Manag. 14 (3), 207e222. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8551.00375.
Trencher, G., Yarime, M., McCormick, K.B., Doll, C.N.H., Kraines, S.B., 2014. Beyond
the third mission: exploring the emerging university function of co-creation for
sustainability. Sci. Public Policy 41 (2), 151e179. https://doi.org/10.1093/scipol/
sct044.
Trommetter, M., 2005. Biodiversity and international stakes: a question of access.
Ecol. Econ. 53 (4), 573e583. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2004.11.017.
€
Tschiggerl, K., Wolf, P., 2012. Innovative CP networks: the case of the OKOPROFIT®
network promoting innovative clean production solutions for 20 years. Clean
Technol. Environ. Policy 14 (6), 1029e1035. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10098-
012-0515-0.
Uddin, N., Blommerde, M., Taplin, R., Laurence, D., 2015. Sustainable development
outcomes of coal mine methane clean development mechanism Projects in
China. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 45, 1e9. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.rser.2015.01.053.
UN (United Nations), 2015. The 2030 agenda for sustainable development. Available
in: https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/?menu¼1300. May/2019.
UN (United Nations), 2018. World urbanization prospects 2018s: the 2018 revision.
Available in: https://population.un.org/wup/Country-Profiles/.
UN (United Nations), 2019. What we do - promote sustainable development.
Available in: https://www.un.org/en/sections/what-we-do/promote-
sustainable-development/index.html.
UNCED (United Nations Conference on Environment and Development), 1992.
Agenda 21, rio de Janerio, Brazil. Available in: https://sustainabledevelopment.
un.org/content/documents/Agenda21.pdf.
UNDP (United Nations Development Programme), 2018. Human development in-
dicators and indices: 2018 statistical update. Available in: http://hdr.undp.org/
sites/default/files/2018_human_development_statistical_update.pdf.
UNESCO (United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization), 2011.
From green economies to green societies: UNESCO’s commitment to sustain-
able development. Available in: https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/
pf0000213311.
UNFCCC (United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change), 2015. Paris
agreement: UNFCCC. United nations world summit. Available in: https://www.
un.org/ga/documents/overview2005summit.pdf.
Urban, F., Siciliano, G., Sour, K., Lonn, P.D., Tan-Mullins, M., Mang, G., 2015. South-
South technology transfer of low-carbon innovation: large Chinese hydropower
dams in Cambodia. Sustain. Dev. 23 (4), 232e244. https://doi.org/10.1002/
sd.1590.
Van der Gaast, W., Begg, K., Flamos, A., 2009. Promoting sustainable energy tech-
nology transfers to developing countries through the CDM. Appl. Energy 86 (2),
230e236. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2008.03.009.
Velazquez, L., Munguia, N., Platt, A., 2000. Fostering P2 practices in northwest
Mexico through inter-university collaboration. J. Clean. Prod. 8 (5), 433e437.
https://doi.org/10.1016/s0959-6526(00)00047-0.
Verdolini, E., Bosetti, V., 2017. Environmental policy and the international diffusion
of cleaner energy technologies. Environ. Resour. Econ. 66 (3), 497e536. https://
doi.org/10.1007/s10640-016-0090-7.
Wagner, L., 2007. North-South divisions in multilateral environmental agreements:
negotiating the private sector’s role in three rio agreements. Int. Negot. 12 (1),
83e109. https://doi.org/10.1163/138234007x191920.
Wang, C.L., 2016. No-self, natural sustainability and education for sustainable
development. Educ. Philos. Theor. 49 (5), 550e561. https://doi.org/10.1080/
00131857.2016.1217189.
Waswa, P.M.B., Juma, C., 2012. Establishing a space sector for sustainable devel-
opment in Kenya. Int. J. Technol. Glob. 6 (1/2), 152. https://doi.org/10.1504/
ijtg.2012.045292.
WCED (World Commission on Environment and Development), 1987. Our Common
Future. Oxford University Press, Oxford. Available in: https://
sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/documents/5987our-common-future.
pdf.
Williams, L.D.A., 2008. Medical technology transfer for sustainable development: a
case study of intraocular lens replacement to correct cataracts. Technol. Soc. 30
(2), 170e183. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techsoc.2007.12.012.
Winebrake, J.J., 1992. A study of technology-transfer mechanisms for federally
funded R&D. J. Technol. Transf. 17 (4), 54e61. https://doi.org/10.1007/
bf02172612.
Wu, K.J., Zhu, Y., Tseng, M.L., Lim, M.K., Xue, B., 2018. Developing a hierarchical
structure of the co-benefits of the triple bottom line under uncertainty. J. Clean.
Prod. 195, 908e918. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.05.264.
Yoon, W., Han, S., 2017. Does the potential for developing new technology lead to
successful technology transfer commercialisation? The case of public R&D
outputs in Korea. Int. J. Manag. Pract. 10 (1), 93. https://doi.org/10.1504/ijmp.
2017.080654.
Zhang, J., Xie, H., Li, H., 2017. Positioning and priorities of growth management in
construction industrialization: Chinese firm-level empirical research. Sustain-
ability 9 (7), 1105. https://doi.org/10.3390/su9071105.