How Do Policy, Energy, and Geopolitical Risks Shape Sustainable Development Uncertainty in <scp>OECD</scp> Economies?

ABSTRACT Heightened volatility in economic policy, energy markets, and geopolitical relations has intensified concerns about the predictability of sustainable development trajectories in advanced economies. Such uncertainty complicates environmental planning, distorts long‐term investment decisions, and challenges governments' ability to sustain progress toward sustainability objectives. However, the extent to which different sources of uncertainty shape sustainable development uncertainty, and whether structural factors can mitigate these effects, remains insufficiently understood. This study investigates how economic policy uncertainty, energy‐related uncertainty, and geopolitical risk are associated with sustainable development uncertainty in OECD economies, and whether renewable‐energy penetration, urbanization, and trade openness provide stabilizing influences. Using annual data for 13 OECD countries from 2002 to 2023, the analysis applies second‐generation panel econometric methods that account for cross‐sectional dependence and heterogeneous dynamics. Long‐run relationships are examined using cross‐sectionally augmented dynamic panel estimators, with robustness assessed through alternative heterogeneous specifications. The results show that all three uncertainty measures are associated with higher long‐run sustainable development uncertainty, with economic policy uncertainty exerting the strongest effect. In contrast, renewable‐energy penetration and urbanization are linked to lower sustainability uncertainty, while trade openness offers more modest stabilization. Short‐run dynamics indicate that uncertainty shocks temporarily raise sustainability uncertainty, but adjustment toward the long‐run path is relatively rapid. Overall, the findings highlight uncertainty as a material risk to sustainable development trajectories in OECD economies and underscore the importance of structural transformation in enhancing resilience. Policy implications are framed as uncertainty‐mitigation and risk‐management considerations rather than causal prescriptions.