Environmental regulation and competitiveness: Empirical evidence on the Porter Hypothesis from European manufacturing sectors

Energy Policy

Volumn 83, Issue , 2015, Pages 288-300

  Rubashkina, Yana ^a   Galeotti, Marzio ^b   Verdolini, Elena ^c  

^a UNIVERSITÀ CATTOLICA DEL SACRO CUORE   (Italy)

^b UNIVERSITY OF MILAN   (Italy)

^c CENTRO EURO MEDITERRANEO SUI CAMBIAMENTI CLIMATICI   (Italy)

Author keywords

Competitiveness; Environmental regulation; Innovation; Porter hypothesis; Productivity

Indexed keywords

COMPETITION; ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION; FOCUSING; MANUFACTURE; PATENTS AND INVENTIONS; POLLUTION CONTROL; PRODUCTIVITY;

COMPETITIVENESS; ESTIMATION APPROACHES; EUROPEAN MANUFACTURING; INNOVATIVE ACTIVITIES; INSTRUMENTAL VARIABLES; PERFORMANCE INDICATORS; PORTER HYPOTHESIS; PRODUCTIVITY IMPACTS;

ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATIONS;

COMPETITIVENESS; ENVIRONMENTAL ECONOMICS; ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY; INDUSTRIAL PRODUCTION; INNOVATION; MANUFACTURING; PRODUCTIVITY; REGULATORY APPROACH;

UNITED STATES;

EID: 84930089056     PISSN: 03014215     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.enpol.2015.02.014     Document Type: Article

References (63)

1. Alpay E., Buccola S., Kerkvliet J. Productivity growth and environmental regulation in Mexican and U.S. food manufacturing. Am. J. Agric. Econ. 2002, 84:887-901.
2. Ambec S., Cohen M.A., Elgie S., Lanoie P. The Porter Hypothesis at 20: can environmental regulation enhance innovation and competitiveness?. Rev. Environ. Econ. Policy 2013, 7:2-22.
3. Anderson T.W., Rubin H. The asymptotic properties of estimates of the parameters of a single equation in a complete system of stochastic equations. Ann. Math. Stat. 1950, 21:570-582.
4. Baumol W. The Free-Market Innovation Machine: Analyzing the Growth Miracle of Capitalism 2002, Princeton University Press, Princeton.
5. Berman E., Bui L.T.M. Environmental regulation and productivity: evidence from oil refineries. Rev. Econ. Stat. 2001, 83:498-510.
6. Brunel, C., Levinson, A., 2013. Measuring environmental regulatory stringency. OECD Trade and Environment Working Papers no. 2013/05.
7. Brunnermeier S., Cohen M. Determinants of environmental innovation in US manufacturing industries. J. Environ. Econ. Manag. 2003, 45:278-293.
8. Caballero R., Jaffe A. How high are the giants' shoulders?". NBER Macroeconomics Annual 1993, 8:15-74. MIT Press, Cambridge.
9. Carrion-Flores C.E., Innes R. Environmental innovation and environmental performance. J. Environ. Econ. Manag. 2010, 59:27-42.
10. Costantini V., Crespi F. Environmental regulation and the export dynamics of energy technologies. Ecol. Econ. 2008, 66:447-460.
11. Costantini V., Mazzanti M. On the green and innovative side of trade competitiveness? The impact of environmental policies and innovation on EU exports. Res. Policy 2012, 41:132-153.
12. de Vries, F.P., Withagen, C., 2005. Innovation and environmental stringency: the case of sulfur dioxide abatement. CentER Discussion Paper no. 2005-18. Tilburg University January.
13. EU KLEMS, 2009. Growth and Productivity Accounts Database, November 2009 Release.
14. EUROSTAT, 2012a. Detailed Enterprise Statistics on Manufacturing Subsections.
15. EUROSTAT, 2012b. Patent Statistics Database.
16. EUROSTAT, 2012c. Environmental Protection Expenditure in Europe Database.
17. Franco, C., Marin, G., 2013. The effect of within-sector, upstream and downstream energy taxed on innovation and productivity. FEEM Working Paper no. 103.2013.
18. Galeotti, M., Rubashkina, Y. Salini, S., Verdolini, E., 2014. Environmental policy indicator: application of a three-level random intercept model. FEEM Working Paper no. 90.2014.
19. Gollop F.M., Roberts M.J. Environmental regulations and productivity growth: the case of fossil-fuelled electric power generation. J. Polit. Econ. 1983, 91:654-674.
20. Gray, W.B., Shadbegian, R., 1993. Pollution abatement costs, regulation, and plant-level productivity. NBER Working Paper no. 4994, January.
21. Gray W.B., Shadbegian R. Environmental Regulation, Investment Timing and Technology Choice. J. Ind. Econ. 1998, XLVI:235-256.
22. Gray W.B., Shadbegian R. Plant vintage, technology and environmental regulation. J. Environ. Econ. Manag. 2003, 46:384-402.
23. Greenstone, M., List, J.A., Syverson, C., 2012. The effects of environmental regulation on the competitiveness of U.S. manufacturing. NBER Working Paper no. 18392, September.
24. Griffith R., Redding S., Van Reenen J. mapping the two faces of R&D: productivity growth in a panel of OECD industries. Rev. Econ. Stat. 2004, 86:883-895.
25. Griliches Z. Patent statistics as economic indicators: a survey. J. Econ. Lit. 1990, 28:1661-1707.
26. Grossman G., Helpman E. Innovation and Growth in the Global Economy 1991, The MIT Press, Cambridge.
27. Hamamoto M. Environmental regulation and the productivity of Japanese manufacturing industries. Resour. Energy Econ. 2006, 28:299-312.
28. Horbach J., Rammer C., Rennings K. Determinants of eco-innovations by type of environmental impact. The role of regulatory push/pull, technology push and market pull. Ecol. Econ. 2012, 78:112-122.
29. Jaffe A.B., Peterson S.R., Portney P.R., Stavins R.N. Environmental regulation and the competitiveness of U.S. manufacturing: what does theevidence tell us?. J. Econ. Lit. 1995, 33:132-163.
30. Jaffe A.B., Palmer K. Environmental regulation and innovation: a panel data study. Rev. Econ. Stat. 1997, 79:610-619.
31. Johnstone N., Hascic I., Popp D. Renewable energy policies and technological innovation: evidence based on patent counts. Environ. Resour. Econ. 2010, 45:133-155.
32. Keller W. Geographic localization of international technology diffusion. Am. Econ. Rev. 2002, 92:120-142.
33. Kneller R., Manderson E. Environmental regulations and innovation activity in UK manufacturing industries. Resour. Energy Econ. 2012, 34:211-235.
34. Koźluk, T., Zipperer, V., 2013. Environmental policies and productivity growth-a critical review of empirical findings. Economics Department Working Papers no. 1096, November.
35. Lanjouw J., Mody A. Innovation and the international diffusion of environmentally responsive technology. Res. Policy 1996, 25:549-571.
36. Lanoie P., Patry M., Lajeunesse R. Environmental regulation and productivity: testing the Porter Hypothesis. J. Prod. Anal. 2008, 30:121-128.
37. Lanoie P., Laurent-Lucchetti J., Johnstone N., Ambec S. Environmental policy, innovation and performance: new insights on the Porter Hypothesis. J. Econ. Manag. Strategy 2011, 20:803-842.
38. Lee J., Veloso F.M., Hounshell D.A. Linking induced technological change, and environmental regulation: evidence from patenting in the U.S. auto industry. Res. Policy 2011, 40:1240-1252.
39. Levin R., Cohen W., Mowery D. R&D appropriability, opportunity, and market structure: new evidence on some Schumpeterian hypotheses. Am. Econ. Rev. 1985, 75:20-24.
40. Nesta L., Vona F., Nicolli F. Environmental policies, competition and innovation in renewable energy. J. Environ. Econ. Manag. 2014, 67:396-411.
41. Nicoletti, G., Scarpetta, S., 2003. Regulation, productivity and growth: OECD evidence. TheWorld Bank Policy Research Working Paper no. 2944.
42. OECD, 1996. Pollution control and abatement expenditure in OECD countries. Environment Monograph OECD/GD(96)50.
43. OECD, 2009. OECD Patent Statistics Manual.
44. OECD, 2012. Analytical Business Enterprise Research and Development (ANBERD) Database.
45. Popp D. Pollution control innovations and the Clean Air Act of 1990. J. Policy Anal. Manag. 2003, 22:641-660.
46. 2 regulation in the US, Japan, and Germany. J. Environ. Econ. Manag. 2006, 51:46-71.
47. Popp D., Newell R. Where does energy R&D come from? Examining crowding out from energy R&D. Energy Econ. 2012, 34:980-991.
48. Porter M. America's green strategy. Sci. Am. 1991, 264:168.
49. Porter M.E., van der Linde C. Towards a new conception of the environmental-competitiveness relationship. J. Econ. Perspect. 1995, 9:97-118.
50. Rennings, K., Rammer, C., 2010. The impact of regulation-driven environmental innovation on innovation success and firm performance. ZEW Discussion Paper no. 10-065.
51. Rexhäuser S., Rammer C. Environmental innovations and firm profitability: unmasking the Porter Hypothesis. Environ. Resour. Econ. 2014, 57:145-167.
52. Roediger-Schluga T. Some micro-evidence on the 'Porter Hypothesis' from Austrian VOC emission standards. Growth Change 2003, 34:359-379.
53. Rubashkina, Y., Galeotti, M., Verdolini, E., 2014. Environmental Regulation and Competitiveness: Empirical Evidence on the Porter Hypothesis from European Manufacturing Sectors. §IEFE Bocconi Working Paper no. 69.
54. Schumpeter J. Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy 1943, Allen and Unwin, London, (originally published in the USA in 1942; reprinted by Routledge, London in 1994).
55. Schmookler J. Invention and Economic Growth 1966, Harvard University Press, Cambridge.
56. Shea J.S. Instrument relevance in multivariate linear models: a simple measure. Rev. Econ. Stat. 1997, 79:348-352.
57. Staiger D.O., Stock J.H. Instrumental variables regression with weak instruments. Econometrica 1997, 65:557-586.
58. Stock J.H., Wright J.H., Yogo M. A survey of weak instruments and weak identification in generalized method of moments. J. Bus. Econ. Stat. 2002, 20:518-529.
59. Stock J.H., Yogo M. Testing for weak instruments in linear IV regression. Identification and Inference for Econometric Models: Essays in Honor of Thomas Rothenberg 2005, 80-108. Cambridge University Press, New York. D.W.K. Andrews, J.H. Stock (Eds.).
60. van Leeuwen, G., Mohnen, P., 2013. Revisiting the Porter Hypothesis: an empirical analysis of green innovation for the Netherlands. UNU-MERIT Working Paper no. 2013-002.
61. WIOD, 2012. World Input-Output Database, February 2012 Release.
62. Yang C., Tseng Y., Chen C. Environmental regulations, induced R&D, and productivity: evidence from Taiwan's manufacturing industries. Resour. Energy Econ. 2012, 34:514-532.
63. Zaelke D., Kaniaru D., Kružíková E. Making Law Work: Environmental Compliance & Sustainable Development 2005, Cameron May Ltd., London.