User menu

Accès à distance ? S'identifier sur le proxy UCLouvain

Environmental regulation and eco-innovation: the Porter hypothesis refined

Primary tabs

Bitat, Abdelfeteh [USL-B]

The paper analyses the relationship between environmental regulation and eco-innovation. The relationship is tested using a German firm-based panel and a dynamic count data model estimating the propensity of firms to innovate in response to five initiating factors, namely the fulfillment of existing legal requirements, expectations towards future legal requirements, financial incentives, demand for eco-innovations and self-commitment. The heterogeneity of firms is controlled for using R&D intensity, the size, the sector and the region of the company. The results answer the central question concerning the design of environmental policies in order to foster eco-innovation. Comparing a static model to a dynamic one shows that only long term objectives and market incentives are positively associated with eco-innovation. Conventional regulatory tools, namely legally binding instruments, are not effective for triggering innovative behavior at the firm level. The results do not allow to confirm the Porter hypothesis but rather offer a refined version, emphasizing the nuances that apply to the concept of “regulation”. The claim is that what matters is not the type of the policy instrument but rather the perception of the instrument by firms.

Document type Article de périodique (Journal article) – Article de recherche
Access type Accès interdit
Publication date 2018
Language Anglais
Journal information "Eurasian Business Review" - Vol. 8, no.3, p. 299-321 (2017)
Peer reviewed yes
Publisher Springer Nature America, Inc
issn 1309-4297
e-issn 2147-4281
Publication status Publié
Affiliations USL-B - Centre de recherche en Economie (CEREC)
USL-B - Centre d'étude du droit de l'environnement (CEDRE)
USL-B - Séminaire de mathématiques appliquées aux sciences humaines (SMASH)
USL-B - Networks Ontology Data Epistemology Subjectivity (NODES)
UCL - SSH/IRIS-L/CDRE - Centre d'études du droit de l'environnement
UCL - SSH/IRIS-L/CERE - Centre de recherche en économie
Keywords Porter hypothesis ; Environmental regulation ; Eco-innovation ; Count data ; Dynamic panel data
Links
  1. Aerts, K., & Czarnitzki, D. (2006). The impact of public R&D—funding in Flanders. Brussels: IWT.
  2. Aggeri, F. (2000). Les politiques d’environnement comme politiques de l’innovation. In Gérer et Comprendre. Annales des Mines 60 (pp. 31–43).
  3. Aggeri F., Hatchuel A., A Dynamic Model of Environmental Policies. The Case of Innovation Oriented Voluntary Agreements, Voluntary Approaches in Environmental Policy (1999) ISBN:9789048151561 p.151-185, 10.1007/978-94-015-9311-3_10
  4. Ambec Stefan, Barla Philippe, Can Environmental Regulations be Good for Business? An Assessment of the Porter Hypothesis, 10.15173/esr.v14i2.493
  5. Stefan Ambec, Paul Lanoie, Does It Pay to Be Green? A Systematic Overview, 10.5465/amp.2008.35590353
  6. Andersen, M. M. (2010). On the faces and phases of eco-innovation-on the dynamics of the greening of the economy. In Druid Summer Conference 2010. London, United Kingdom.
  7. Andersen, M. S., & Sprenger, R.-U. (2000). Market-based instruments for environmental management: politics and institutions. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.
  8. Arulampalam Wiji, Stewart Mark B., Simplified Implementation of the Heckman Estimator of the Dynamic Probit Model and a Comparison with Alternative Estimators, 10.1111/j.1468-0084.2009.00554.x
  9. Arundel, A., & Kemp, R. (2009). Measuring eco-innovation. UNU-MERIT Working Paper Series-017.
  10. Ashford, N. A. (1993). Understanding technological responses of industrial firms to environmental problems: implications for government policy. In Environmental strategies for industry: international perspectives in research needs and policy implications (pp. 277–307). Washington, DC: Island Press.
  11. Fixed-Effects Dynamic Panel Models, a Factor Analytical Method, 10.3982/ecta9409
  12. Bauermann Klaas, German Energiewende and the heating market – Impact and limits of policy, 10.1016/j.enpol.2016.03.041
  13. Beise Marian, Rennings Klaus, Lead markets and regulation: a framework for analyzing the international diffusion of environmental innovations, 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2004.06.007
  14. Bérubé Charles, Mohnen Pierre, Are firms that receive R&D subsidies more innovative? : Firms that receive R&D subsidies more innovative, 10.1111/j.1540-5982.2008.01505.x
  15. Bitat, A. (2016). Environmental regulation and eco-innovation: insights from diffusion of innovations theory. Maghreb Review of Economics and Management, 3, 112–129.
  16. Braun Bruce, Environmental issues: inventive life, 10.1177/0309132507088030
  17. Calleja Ignacio, Delgado Luis, European environmental technologies action plan (ETAP), 10.1016/j.jclepro.2007.10.005
  18. Calleja, I., Delgado, L., Eder, P., Kroll, A., Lindblom, J., Van Wunnik, C., Wolf, O., Gouarderes, F., & Langendorff, J. (2004). Promoting environmental technologies: sectoral analysis, barriers and measures. IPTS report EUR, 21002. Institute for Prospective Technological Studies, Seville.
  19. Cameron, C., & Trivedi, P. K. (2013). Count panel data. In B. H. Baltagi (Ed.), Oxford handbook of panel data econometrics. New York: Oxford University Press.
  20. Catozzella Alessandra, Vivarelli Marco, The possible adverse impact of innovation subsidies: some evidence from Italy, 10.1007/s11365-014-0342-3
  21. Clausen Tommy H., Do subsidies have positive impacts on R&D and innovation activities at the firm level?, 10.1016/j.strueco.2009.09.004
  22. Coglianese Cary, Nash Jennifer, Olmstead Todd, Performance-Based Regulation: Prospects and Limitations in Health, Safety and Environmental Protection, 10.2139/ssrn.392400
  23. Cohen, M. A., & Tubb, A. (2015). The impact of environmental regulation on firm and country competitiveness: a meta-analysis of the porter hypothesis. Available at SSRN. http://ssrn.com/abstract=2692919 . Accessed 31 May 2017.
  24. Costantini Valeria, Crespi Francesco, Martini Chiara, Pennacchio Luca, Demand-pull and technology-push public support for eco-innovation: The case of the biofuels sector, 10.1016/j.respol.2014.12.011
  25. Dal Bo E., Regulatory Capture: A Review, 10.1093/oxrep/grj013
  26. del Río González Pablo, The empirical analysis of the determinants for environmental technological change: A research agenda, 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2008.07.004
  27. del Río Pablo, On evaluating success in complex policy mixes: the case of renewable energy support schemes, 10.1007/s11077-013-9189-7
  28. del Río Pablo, Carrillo-Hermosilla Javier, Könnölä Totti, Policy Strategies to Promote Eco-Innovation : An Integrated Framework, 10.1111/j.1530-9290.2010.00259.x
  29. Di Stefano Giada, Gambardella Alfonso, Verona Gianmario, Technology push and demand pull perspectives in innovation studies: Current findings and future research directions, 10.1016/j.respol.2012.03.021
  30. Doran Justin, Ryan Geraldine, Regulation and firm perception, eco‐innovation and firm performance, 10.1108/14601061211272367
  31. Dosi, G. (1988). Sources, procedures, and microeconomic effects of innovation. Journal of Economic Literature, 26(3), 1120–1171.
  32. Ecorys,. (2011). The role of market-based instruments in achieving a resource efficient economy. Technical Report European Commission: DG Environment.
  33. Edquist, C. (1999). Innovation policy: A systemic approach. Tema: Univ.
  34. Environmental Protection Act (1990). Environmental protection act 1990. London: Her Majesty's Stationary Office.
  35. European Commission (2014). Factsheet: financial instruments in cohesion policy 2014–2020. Brussels: DG REGIOnal Policy. http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/sources/docgener/informat/2014/financial_instruments_en.pdf . Accessed 30 May 2007.
  36. European Environment Agency (2006). EEA report. In Using the market for cost-effective environmental policy: market-based instruments in Europe. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities.
  37. Fiorino, D. J. (2006). The new environmental regulation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
  38. Fisher Dana R., Freudenburg William R., Ecological Modernization and Its Critics: Assessing the Past and Looking Toward the Future, 10.1080/08941920152524891
  39. Fontana R., Guerzoni M., Incentives and uncertainty: an empirical analysis of the impact of demand on innovation, 10.1093/cje/ben021
  40. Freeman, C. (1982). The economics of industrial innovation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
  41. Frondel Manuel, Horbach Jens, Rennings Klaus, End-of-pipe or cleaner production? An empirical comparison of environmental innovation decisions across OECD countries, 10.1002/bse.496
  42. Gardiner David, Jacobson Lisa, WillVoluntary ProgramsBe Sufficient toReduce U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions?, 10.1080/00139157.2002.10544686
  43. Godin Benoit, Lane Joseph P., Pushes and Pulls : Hi(S)tory of the Demand Pull Model of Innovation, 10.1177/0162243912473163
  44. Griliches Zvi, Hybrid Corn: An Exploration in the Economics of Technological Change, 10.2307/1905380
  45. Guerin, K. et al. (2003). Encouraging quality regulation: Theories and tools. Technical Report New Zealand Treasury.
  46. Hahn, R. W., & Stavins, R. N. (1991). Incentive-based environmental regulation: A new era from an old idea. Ecology LQ, 18, 1.
  47. Heckman, J. J. (1981). The incidental parameters problem and the problem of initial conditions in estimating a discrete time-discrete data stochastic process. In C. F. Manski & D. L. McFadden (Eds.), Structural analysis of discrete data with econometric applications. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
  48. Horbach Jens, Rammer Christian, Rennings Klaus, Determinants of eco-innovations by type of environmental impact — The role of regulatory push/pull, technology push and market pull, 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2012.04.005
  49. HUBER J, Pioneer countries and the global diffusion of environmental innovations: Theses from the viewpoint of ecological modernisation theory, 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2008.03.004
  50. Hujer Reinhard, Radic Dubravko, EVALUATING THE IMPACTS OF SUBSIDIES ON INNOVATION ACTIVITIES IN GERMANY, 10.1111/j.1467-9485.2005.00356.x
  51. Iwulska, A. (2012). Country benchmarks. In I. S. Gill & M. Raiser (Eds.), Golden growth: restoring the lustre of the European economic model. Washington, DC: World Bank Publications.
  52. Jaffe Adam B., Palmer Karen, Environmental Regulation and Innovation: A Panel Data Study, 10.1162/003465397557196
  53. Jaffe Adam B., Stavins Robert N., Dynamic Incentives of Environmental Regulations: The Effects of Alternative Policy Instruments on Technology Diffusion, 10.1006/jeem.1995.1060
  54. Johnstone Nick, The Innovation Effects of Environmental Policy Instruments, Sustainability and Innovation ISBN:3790815535 p.21-41, 10.1007/3-7908-1620-5_2
  55. Kesidou Effie, Demirel Pelin, On the drivers of eco-innovations: Empirical evidence from the UK, 10.1016/j.respol.2012.01.005
  56. Krysiak Frank C., Environmental regulation, technological diversity, and the dynamics of technological change, 10.1016/j.jedc.2010.12.004
  57. Lah, O. (2009). The climate for change: the conditions for effective climate change policies: a case study on residential home insulation policies in New Zealand and Germany. Wellington: School of Geography, Environment and Earth Sciences.
  58. Lanoie Paul, Patry Michel, Lajeunesse Richard, Environmental regulation and productivity: testing the porter hypothesis, 10.1007/s11123-008-0108-4
  59. Lowry, M. N. (2002). Performance-based regulation of utilities. Energy LJ, 23, 399.
  60. Marginson Simon, The public/private divide in higher education: A global revision, 10.1007/s10734-005-8230-y
  61. McWilliams Abagail, Siegel Donald, Corporate social responsibility and financial performance: correlation or misspecification?, 10.1002/(sici)1097-0266(200005)21:5<603::aid-smj101>3.0.co;2-3
  62. Mele Cristina, Russo-Spena Tiziana, Eco-innovation practices, 10.1108/jocm-08-2013-0146
  63. Moral-Benito Enrique, Likelihood-Based Estimation of Dynamic Panels With Predetermined Regressors, 10.1080/07350015.2013.818003
  64. Murphy Joseph, Gouldson Andrew, Environmental policy and industrial innovation: integrating environment and economy through ecological modernisation, 10.1016/s0016-7185(99)00042-1
  65. Nordhaus, R. R. (2011). Treatment of ccs under ghg regulatory programmes. In I. Havercroft, R. Macrory, & R. Stewart (Eds.), Carbon Capture and Storage: Emerging Legal and Regulatory Issues chapter 5. (pp. 81–91). Oxford: Bloomsbury Publishing. https://books.google.be/books?id=Dol6BAAAQBAJ . Accessed 30 Sept 2016
  66. Nordhaus, R. R., & Danish, K. W. (2005). Assessing the Options for Designing a Mandatory U.S. Greenhouse Gas Reduction Program. Boston College Environmental Affairs Law Review, 32, 97–163. http://search.proquest.com/docview/743475172?accountid=26636$delimiter”026E30F .
  67. OECD (2009). Eco-innovation in industry: enabling green growth. Paris: OECD.
  68. Opschoor, J. B. (1995). Managing the environment: the role of economic instruments. Fuel and Energy Abstracts, 5(36), 373.
  69. Orme, C. (2001). Two-step inference in dynamic non-linear panel data models. Manuscript, School of Economic Studies, University of Manchester.
  70. Palmer Geoffrey, New Ways to Make International Environmental Law, 10.2307/2203234
  71. Peters Bettina, Rammer Christian, Innovation panel surveys in Germany, 10.4337/9780857933652.00015
  72. Popp David, Newell Richard G., Jaffe Adam B., Energy, the Environment, and Technological Change, Handbook of the Economics of Innovation, Volume 2 (2010) ISBN:9780444536099 p.873-937, 10.1016/s0169-7218(10)02005-8
  73. Porter Michael E., Essay, 10.1038/scientificamerican0491-168
  74. Queensland Government (2006). Guidelines on alternative to prescriptive regulation. Technical Report.
  75. Rabe-Hesketh Sophia, Skrondal Anders, Avoiding biased versions of Wooldridge’s simple solution to the initial conditions problem, 10.1016/j.econlet.2013.05.009
  76. Rennings Klaus, Redefining innovation — eco-innovation research and the contribution from ecological economics, 10.1016/s0921-8009(99)00112-3
  77. Rexhäuser Sascha, Rammer Christian, Environmental Innovations and Firm Profitability: Unmasking the Porter Hypothesis, 10.1007/s10640-013-9671-x
  78. Richter Steffi, Johnke Bernt, Status of PCDD/F-emission control in Germany on the basis of the current legislation and strategies for further action, 10.1016/s0045-6535(03)00247-9
  79. Rosenberg Nathan, Perspectives on Technology, ISBN:9780511561313, 10.1017/cbo9780511561313
  80. Rothenberg, S., & Zyglidopoulos, S. (2003). Determinants of environmental innovation adoption in the printing industry. Rochester Institute of Technology, Rochester, USA. http://scholarworks.rit.edu/books/13
  81. Sappington David E.M., Pfeifenberger Johannes P., Hanser Philip, Basheda Gregory N., The State of Performance-Based Regulation in the U.S. Electric Utility Industry, 10.1016/s1040-6190(01)00240-8
  82. Schmookler Jacob, Economic Sources of Inventive Activity, 10.1017/s0022050700102311
  83. Schmookler Jacob, Invention and Economic Growth : , ISBN:9780674432833, 10.4159/harvard.9780674432833
  84. Stavins, R. N. (1995). Harnessing market forces to protect the environment. In K. Schwab (Ed.), Overcoming Indifference: Ten Key Challenges in Today’s Changing World: A Survey of Ideas and Proposals for Action on the Threshold of the Twenty-First Century. New York: New York University Press. C-5.
  85. Truffer Bernhard, Coenen Lars, Environmental Innovation and Sustainability Transitions in Regional Studies, 10.1080/00343404.2012.646164
  86. Wagner Marcus, The role of corporate sustainability performance for economic performance: A firm-level analysis of moderation effects, 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2010.02.017
  87. Wagner Marcus, Llerena Patrick, Eco-Innovation Through Integration, Regulation and Cooperation: Comparative Insights from Case Studies in Three Manufacturing Sectors, 10.1080/13662716.2011.621744
  88. Whitten, S., Van Bueren, M., & Collins, D. (2003). An overview of market-based instruments and environmental policy in australia. In AARES Symposium.
  89. Wooldridge Jeffrey M., Simple solutions to the initial conditions problem in dynamic, nonlinear panel data models with unobserved heterogeneity, 10.1002/jae.770
  90. Wooldridge, J. M. (2009). Correlated random effects models with unbalanced panels. Manuscript (version July 2009) Michigan State University.
  91. Zarker Kenneth A., Kerr Robert L., Pollution prevention through performance-based initiatives and regulation in the United States, 10.1016/j.jclepro.2007.02.018
  92. ZEW (2014). The Scientific-Use of the Mannheim Innovation Panel. Technical Report Zentrum für Europäische Wirtschaftsforschung.
Bibliographic reference Bitat, Abdelfeteh. Environmental regulation and eco-innovation: the Porter hypothesis refined. In: Eurasian Business Review, Vol. 8, no.3, p. 299-321 (2017)
Permanent URL http://hdl.handle.net/2078.3/204863