Distributional impacts of environmental taxes for advancing SDGS 10 and 13 in the energy transition: A bibliometric and systematic review

¹ Universitas Negeri Surabaya, Economics Department, 60231 Kota Surabaya, Indonesia
² Global Development Studies, Faculty of Social Science, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Unionkatu

^* Corresponding author: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

Abstract

Environmental taxes are advance SDGs 13 by driving the energy transition toward low-carbon systems, but regressive and may worsen inequality (SDG 10), creating a policy dilemma that universities often address inadequately by teaching environmental and renewable energy policy separately. This paper investigates the conflict between these goals within the just transition framework, mapping the academic literature on environmental taxes’ distributional effects and summarizes empirical findings to inform equitable policy design. Bibliometric analysis of 1,105 articles between 2015-2025 and a systematic review of 93 studies were used. Results reveal substantial publishing growth (16.3% each year), leading contributions from China, the US, and Germany, and a shift from carbon pricing to justice and sustainability—mirroring the broader evolution of energy transition discourse. Empirical evidence indicates that environmental taxes are regressive. However, by strategically allocating recycling revenues, especially through lump-sum transfers (which are effective in approximately 72% of cases compared to 35% tax cuts), low-income households can be alleviated, and there is a noticeable disparity in the impact between countries with high and low-middle incomes. Further research should address this regressivity gap, advance empirical microsimulation method, and formulate interdisciplinary curriculum that mixes efficiency and social justice. This study’s limitations include geographical bias favouring developed nations, insufficient research on emerging environmental taxes, and the absence of intersectional analysis.