Environmental policy and profitability: Evidence from Swedish industry

Environmental Economics and Policy Studies

Volumn 12, Issue 1, 2010, Pages 59-78

  Brännlund, Runar ^a,b,c   Lundgren, Tommy ^a,b,d  

^a Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences   (Sweden)

^b SWEDISH UNIVERSITY OF AGRICULTURAL SCIENCES   (Sweden)

^c UMEÅ UNIVERSITY   (Sweden)

^d UMEÅ UNIVERSITY   (Sweden)

Author keywords

CO2 tax; Factor demands; Porter hypothesis; Technological progress

Indexed keywords

EID: 77953899612     PISSN: 1432847X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s10018-010-0163-8     Document Type: Article

References (37)

1. Alpay E, Buccolaand S, Kerkvliet J (2002) Productivity growth and environmental regulation in Mexican and U. S. food manufacturing. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 84: 887-901.
2. Barbera AJ, McConnell VD (1990) The impact of environmental regulations on industry productivity: direct and indirect effects. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 18: 50-65.
3. Bergman MA (1996) Estimating Investment Adjustment Costs and Capital Rates from the Production Function, Umeå Economic Studies 406, Umeå University, Sweden.
4. Berman E, Bui LTM (2001) Environmental regulation and productivity: evidence from oil refineries. The Review of Economics and Statistics 83: 498-510.
5. Brännlund R, Lundgren T (2007) Swedish industry and Kyoto-an assessment of the effects of the European CO2 emission trading system. Energy Policy 35: 4749-4762.
6. Brännlund R, Lundgren T (2009) Environmental policy without costs? A review of the Porter hypothesis. International Review of Environmental and Resource Economics 3: 1-43.
7. Brunnermeier SB, Cohen MA (2003) Determinants of environmental innovation in US manufacturing industries. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 45: 278-293.
8. Cole MA, Elliot RJ (2007) Do environmental regulations cost jobs? An industry-level analysis of the UK. The BE Journal of Economic Analysis and Policy vol 7, article 28.
9. Feichtinger G, Hartl RF, Kort PM, Veliov VM (2005) Environmental policy, the Porter hypothesis and the composition of capital: effects of learning and technological progress. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 50: 434-446.
10. Gabel LH, Sinclair-Desgagné B (1998) The firm its routines, and the environment. In Folmer H, Tietenberg T (eds.), The International Yearbook of Environmental and Resource Economics 1998/1999. Edward Elgar publishing company.
11. Gabel LH, Sinclair-Desgagné B (2001) The firm its procedures and win-win environmental regulations. In Folmer H, Gabel LH, Gerkin S, Rose A (eds.), Frontiers of Environmental Economics. Edward Elgar publishing company.
12. Gollop FM, Roberts MJ (1983) Environmental regulations and productivity growth: the case of fossilfuelled electric power generation. Journal of Political Economy 91: 654-674.
13. Gray WB, Shadbegian RJ (1998) Environmental regulation, investment timing, and technology choice. Journal of Industrial Economics 46: 235-256.
14. Gray WB, Shadbegian RJ (2003) Plant vintage, technology, and environmental regulation. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 46: 384-402.
15. Greaker M (2006) Spillovers in the development of new pollution abatement technology: a new look at the Porter-hypothesis. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 52: 1411-1420.
16. Hamamoto M (2006) Environmental regulation and the productivity of Japanese manufacturing industries. Resource and Energy Economics 28: 299-312.
17. Hammar H, Lundgren T, Sjöström M (2008) The significance of transport costs in Swedish forest industry. Journal of Transport Economics and Policy 42: 83-104.
18. Hammar H, Lundgren T, Sjöström M, Andersson M (2009) The kilometer tax and Swedish industry-effects on industry sectors and regions. Applied Economics. doi: 10. 1080/00036840802600608.
19. Jaffe AB, Palmer K (1997) Environmental regulation and innovation: a panel data study. Review of Economics and Statistics 79: 610-619.
20. Jaffe AB, Peterson SR, Portney PR, Stavins RN (1995) Environmental regulation and the competitiveness of U. S. manufacturing: what does the evidence tell us? Journal of Economic Literature 33: 132-163.
21. Jorgenson DW (1963) Captial Theory and Investment Behavior, American Economic Review 53: 247-259.
22. King MA, Fullerton D (1984) The Taxation of Income from Capital, The University of Chicago Press, Chicago and London.
23. Lanoie P, Patry M, Lajeunesse R (2008) Environmental regulation and productivity: testing the Porter hypothesis. Journal of Productivity Analysis 30: 121-128.
24. Managi S, Opaluch J, Jin D, Grigalunas T (2005) Environmental regulations and technological change in the offshore oil and gas industry. Land Economics 81: 303-319.
25. Mohr RD (2002) Technical change, external economies, and the Porter hypothesis. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 43: 158-168.
26. Nickell SJ (1978) The Investment Decisions of Firms, Cambridge Economic Handbooks, University Press, Oxford, UK.
27. Palmer K, Oates WE, Portney PR (1995) Tightening environmental standards: the benefit-cost or the no-cost paradigm? Journal of Economic Perspectives 9: 119-132.
28. Piot-Lepetit I, Le Moing M (2007) Productivity and environmental regulation: the effect of the nitrates directive in the French pig sector. Environmental and Resource Economics 38: 433-446.
29. Popp D (2002) Induced innovation and energy prices. American Economic Review 92: 160-180.
30. Popp D (2005) Lessons from patents: using patents to measure technological change in environmental models. Ecological Economics 54: 209-226.
31. Porter ME (1991) America's green strategy. Scientific American 264: 168.
32. Shadbegian RJ, Gray WB (2005) Pollution abatement expenditures and plant-level productivity: a production function approach. Ecological Economics 54: 196-208.
33. Simpson D, Bradford RL (1996) Taxing variable cost: environmental regulation as industrial policy. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 30: 282-300.
34. Smith JB, Sims WA (1985) The impact of pollution charges on productivity growth in Canadian brewing. Rand Journal of Economics 16: 410-423.
35. van der Linde, Porter M (1995) Toward a new conception of the environment competitiveness relationship. Journal of Economic Perspectives 9(4): 97-118.
36. van der Vlist AJ, Withagen C, Folmer H (2007) Technical efficiency under alternative environmental regulatory regimes: the case of Dutch horticulture. Ecological Economics 63: 165-173.
37. Xepapadeas A, de Zeeuw A (1999) Environmental policy and competitiveness: the Porter hypothesis and the composition of capital. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 37: 165-182.