Effect of pollution control on corporate financial performance in a transition economy

European Environment

Volumn 17, Issue 4, 2007, Pages 247-266

  Earnhart, Dietrich ^a   Lizal, Lubomir ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF KANSAS   (United States)

^b CHARLES UNIVERSITY   (Czech Republic)

Author keywords

Czech Republic; Environmental protection; Financial performance; Pollution control

Indexed keywords

ATMOSPHERIC POLLUTION; CORPORATE STRATEGY; ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION; POLLUTION CONTROL; PROFITABILITY; TRANSITIONAL ECONOMY;

CENTRAL EUROPE; CZECH REPUBLIC; EURASIA; EUROPE;

EID: 34547782674     PISSN: 09610405     EISSN: 10990976     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/eet.447     Document Type: Article

References (39)

1. Arora. S, Cason T. 1995. An experiment in voluntary environmental regulation: participation in EPA's 33/50 Program. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 28(3): 271-286.
2. Arora S, Cason T. 1996. Why do firms volunteer to exceed environmental regulations? Understanding participation in EPA's 33/50 Program. Land Economics 72(4): 413-432.
3. Austin D, Alberini A, Videras J. 1999. Is there a link between a firm's environmental and financial performance? Presented at NBER Summer Institute Public Economics Workshop: Public Policy and the Environment, Cambridge, MA, 1999.
4. Bluffstone R. 1999. Are the costs of pollution abatement lower in Central and Eastern Europe? Evidence from Lithuania. Environment and Development Economics 44: 449-470.
5. Claessens S, Djankov S. 1999. Ownership concentration and corporate performance in the Czech Republic. Journal of Comparative Economics 27(3): 498-513.
6. Cohen M, Fenn SA, Naimon J. 1997. Environmental and Financial Performance: Are They Related? Investor Responsibility Research Center Monograph.
7. Czech Ministry of Environment. 1998. Statistical Environmental Yearbook of the Czech Republic. Czech Ministry of the Environment: Prague.
8. Czech Ministry of Environment. 2004. Report on the Environment in the Czech Republic in 2003. Prague: Czech Ministry of the Environment.
9. Djankov S. 1999. Ownership structure and enterprise restructuring in six newly independent states. Comparative Economic Studies 41(1): 75-95.
10. Dodd P, Warner J. 1983. On corporate governance: a study of proxy contests. Journal of Financial Economics 11(1-4) [April]: 401-438.
11. Earnhart D. 1998. Civil Litigation, Access to Government-Held Information, and Coordination of Public and Private Enforcement in the Czech Republic. European Journal of Law and Economics 6(1): 113-141.
12. Earnhart D, Lizal L. 2006a. Effects of ownership and financial performance on corporate environmental performance. Journal of Comparative Economics 34(1): 111-129.
13. Earnhart D, Lizal L. 2006b. Stringency of Environmental Policies and Induced Pollution Reductions in a Transition Economy. University of Kansas, mimeograph.
14. Filbeck G, Gorman R. 2004. The Relationship between the Environmental and Financial Performance of Public Utilities. Environmental and Resource Economics 29: 137-154.
15. Filer R, Hanousek J. 2004a. Substitution biases in price indexes during transition. Statistical Journal 21(2): 153-163.
16. Filer R, Hanousek J. 2004b. Consumers' opinion of inflation bias due to quality improvements. Economic Development and Cultural Change 53(1): 235-254.
17. Frydman R, Gray C, Hessel M, Rapaczynski A. 1999. When does privatization work? The impact of private ownership on corporate performance in the transition economies. Quarterly Journal of Economics 114(4): 1153-1191.
18. Gottsman L, Kessler J. 1998. Smart screened investments: environmentally-screened equity funds that perform like conventional funds. Journal of Investing 7(4): 1-10.
19. Gupta N, Ham J, Svejnar J. 2000. Priorities and Sequencing in Privatization: Theory and Evidence from the Czech Republic, William Davidson Institute Working Paper 369.
20. Hanousek J, Kocenda E, Svejnar J. 2005. "Origin and Concentration: Corporate Ownership, Control and Performance," CERGE-EI Working Paper No. 259 (May, 2005).
21. Hart SL, Ahuja G. 1996. Does it pay to be green? An empirical examination of the relationship between emission reduction and firm performance. Business Strategy and the Environment 5(1): 30-37.
22. Heckman J. 1979. Sample selection bias as specification error. Econometrica 47: 153-161.
23. Khanna M, Damon L. 1999. EPA's Voluntary 33/50 Program: impact on toxic releases and economic performance of firms. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 37(1): 1-25.
24. Khanna M, Quimio WR, Bojilova D. 1998. Toxics release information: a policy tool for environmental protection. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 36: 243-266.
25. Klassen R, McLaughlin C. 1996. The impact of environmental management on firm performance. Management Science 42(8): 1199-1214.
26. Kocenda E, Svejnar J. 2002. The Effects of Ownership Forms and Concentration on Firm Performance after Large-Scale Privatization, William Davidson Institute Work Paper 471.
27. Konar S, Cohen M. 1997. Information as regulation: the effect of community right to know laws on toxic emissions. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 32: 109-124.
28. Konar S, Cohen M. 2001. Does the market value environmental performance? Review of Economics and Statistics 83(2): 281-289.
29. Laplante B, Lanoie P. 1994. The market response to environmental incidents in Canada: a theoretical and empirical analysis. Southern Economic Journal 60(3): 657-672.
30. McGuire JB, Sundgren A, Schneeweis T. 1988. Corporate social responsibility and firm financial performance. The Academy of Management Journal 31(4): 854-872.
31. Palmer K, Oates W, Portney P. 1995. Tightening Environmental Standards: The Benefit-Cost or the No-Cost Paradigm? Journal of Economic Perspectives 9(4): 119-132.
32. Pohl G, Anderson R, Claessens S, Djankov S. 1997. Privatization and Restructuring in Central and Eastern Europe: Evidence and Policy Options, World Bank Technical Paper 368.
33. Porter ME, van der Linde C. 1995. Toward a new conception of the environment-competitiveness relationship. Journal of Economic Perspectives 9(4): 97-118.
34. Portney P, Stavins R. (eds) 2000. Public Policies for Environmental Protection, 2nd edition, Washington, DC: Resources for the Future.
35. Rassier D. 2005. Does Environmental Regulation Affect Financial Performance? Evidence from Permitted Limits and Intervention Data, University of Kansas - Department of Economics, mimeograph.
36. Russo MV, Fouts PA. 1997. A resource-based perspective on corporate environmental performance and responsibility. The Academy of Management Journal 40 (3): 534-559.
37. Weiss A, Nikitin G. 2002. Effects of ownership by investment funds on the performance of Czech firms. In Designing Financial Systems in Transition Economies: Strategies for Reform in Central and Eastern Europe, Meyendorff A, Thakor A (eds). MIT Press: Cambridge, MA; Chapter 10, 187-214.
38. World Bank. 1992. Czech and Slovak Federal Republic Joint Environmental Study, Report 9623-CS.
39. World Bank. 1999. Country Economic Memorandum - Czech Republic, report prepared by Julia Bucknall, Rita Cestiti, and Gordon Hughes. World Bank: Washington, DC.