IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v12y2020i24p10300-d459503.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Capital Intensity and Labour Productivity in Waste Companies

Author

Listed:
  • Martina Novotná

    (Department of Applied Economy and Economics, Faculty of Economics, University of South Bohemia in České Budějovice, Studentská 13, 370 05 České Budějovice, Czech Republic)

  • Ivana Faltová Leitmanová

    (Department of Applied Economy and Economics, Faculty of Economics, University of South Bohemia in České Budějovice, Studentská 13, 370 05 České Budějovice, Czech Republic)

  • Jiří Alina

    (Department of Applied Economy and Economics, Faculty of Economics, University of South Bohemia in České Budějovice, Studentská 13, 370 05 České Budějovice, Czech Republic)

  • Tomáš Volek

    (Department of Applied Economy and Economics, Faculty of Economics, University of South Bohemia in České Budějovice, Studentská 13, 370 05 České Budějovice, Czech Republic)

Abstract

At first glance, it might seem that the economic aspects of sustainability in terms of waste management have resolved themselves already in areas of activity. In reality, however, companies in this area also need to address how to ensure their future operations. The primary priority for companies in the area of waste disposal is to provide efficient collection, sorting, and recycling, effectively using company resources. The goal of this paper was to explore the relation between capital intensity and the productivity of labour in companies in the waste sector in the countries of the Visegrad Group (V4), and consequently, to define the bonds among economic indicators in the form of the economic normal. The study used data from 875 enterprises from the V4 countries, which were divided into categories according to the development of capital intensity and labour productivity. This study found that companies mainly implement modest investment development, which was characterised by the high effectiveness of capital usage, diminishing labour productivity, low labour endowment, but at the same time, increasing profitability. The reason for the labour productivity decrease was due to the growing proportional cost of labour. This trend was typical for most of the large-sized and middle-sized companies, whereas for most small companies, there was a dominant severe capital development with decreasing labour productivity and relatively high profitability of incomes. The smallest representation takes companies with capital-intensive development with the positive development of all monitored economic indicators.

Suggested Citation

  • Martina Novotná & Ivana Faltová Leitmanová & Jiří Alina & Tomáš Volek, 2020. "Capital Intensity and Labour Productivity in Waste Companies," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(24), pages 1-15, December.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:12:y:2020:i:24:p:10300-:d:459503
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/12/24/10300/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/12/24/10300/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Pérez-López, Gemma & Prior, Diego & Zafra-Gómez, José Luis & Plata-Díaz, Ana María, 2016. "Cost efficiency in municipal solid waste service delivery. Alternative management forms in relation to local population size," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 255(2), pages 583-592.
    2. Francisco J. A. Cysneiros & Víctor Leiva & Shuangzhe Liu & Carolina Marchant & Paulo Scalco, 2019. "A Cobb–Douglas type model with stochastic restrictions: formulation, local influence diagnostics and data analytics in economics," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 53(4), pages 1693-1719, July.
    3. Pérez-López, Gemma & Prior, Diego & Zafra-Gómez, José L., 2018. "Temporal scale efficiency in DEA panel data estimations. An application to the solid waste disposal service in Spain," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 76(C), pages 18-27.
    4. Gajdzik, Bożena & Gawlik, Remigiusz, 2018. "Choosing the Production Function Model for an Optimal Measurement of the Restructuring Efficiency of the Polish Metallurgical Sector in Years 2000–2015," MPRA Paper 83618, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    5. H. Ben Hassine & F. Boudier & C. Mathieu, 2017. "The two ways of FDI R&D spillovers: evidence from the French manufacturing industry," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 49(25), pages 2395-2408, May.
    6. Berends, P. A. J. & Romme, A. G. L., 2001. "Cyclicality of capital-intensive industries: a system dynamics simulation study of the paper industry," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 29(6), pages 543-552, December.
    7. Teimuraz Gogokhia & George Berulava, 2021. "Business environment reforms, innovation and firm productivity in transition economies," Eurasian Business Review, Springer;Eurasia Business and Economics Society, vol. 11(2), pages 221-245, June.
    8. Marina P. P. Pieroni & Tim C. McAloone & Daniela C. A. Pigosso, 2019. "Configuring New Business Models for Circular Economy through Product–Service Systems," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(13), pages 1-22, July.
    9. Mico Apostolov, 2016. "Cobb–Douglas production function on FDI in Southeast Europe," Journal of Economic Structures, Springer;Pan-Pacific Association of Input-Output Studies (PAPAIOS), vol. 5(1), pages 1-28, December.
    10. Rachel Griffith & Elena Huergo & Jacques Mairesse & Bettina Peters, 2006. "Innovation and Productivity Across Four European Countries," Oxford Review of Economic Policy, Oxford University Press and Oxford Review of Economic Policy Limited, vol. 22(4), pages 483-498, Winter.
    11. Md. Abdul Moktadir & Anil Kumar & Syed Mithun Ali & Sanjoy Kumar Paul & Razia Sultana & Jafar Rezaei, 2020. "Critical success factors for a circular economy: Implications for business strategy and the environment," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 29(8), pages 3611-3635, December.
    12. Takahashi, Harutaka & Mashiyama, Koichi & Sakagami, Tomoya, 2012. "Does The Capital Intensity Matter? Evidence From The Postwar Japanese Economy And Other Oecd Countries," Macroeconomic Dynamics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 16(S1), pages 103-116, April.
    13. Cristina M. Campos-Alba & Emilio J. De la Higuera-Molina & Gemma Pérez-López & José L. Zafra-Gómez, 2019. "Measuring the Efficiency of Public and Private Delivery Forms: An Application to the Waste Collection Service Using Order-M Data Panel Frontier Analysis," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(7), pages 1-15, April.
    14. Hashi, Iraj & Stojčić, Nebojša, 2013. "The impact of innovation activities on firm performance using a multi-stage model: Evidence from the Community Innovation Survey 4," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 42(2), pages 353-366.
    15. Denis Stijepic, 2017. "An argument against Cobb-Douglas production functions (in multi-sector growth modeling)," Economics Bulletin, AccessEcon, vol. 37(2), pages 1143-1150.
    16. Henriques, Alda A. & Camanho, Ana S. & Amorim, Pedro & Silva, Jaime G., 2020. "Performance benchmarking using composite indicators to support regulation of the Portuguese wastewater sector," Utilities Policy, Elsevier, vol. 66(C).
    17. Geoff Mason & Matthew Osborne, 2007. "Productivity, Capital-Intensity and Labour Quality at Sector Level in New Zealand and the UK," Treasury Working Paper Series 07/01, New Zealand Treasury.
    18. Banai, Ádám & Lang, Péter & Nagy, Gábor & Stancsics, Martin, 2020. "Waste of money or growth opportunity: The causal effect of EU subsidies on Hungarian SMEs," Economic Systems, Elsevier, vol. 44(1).
    19. Roman G. Smirnov & Kunpeng Wang, 2019. "The Cobb-Douglas production function revisited," Papers 1910.06739, arXiv.org, revised Oct 2019.
    20. Vedran Kojić & Zrinka Lukač, 2018. "An alternative approach to solving cost minimization problem with Cobb–Douglas technology," Central European Journal of Operations Research, Springer;Slovak Society for Operations Research;Hungarian Operational Research Society;Czech Society for Operations Research;Österr. Gesellschaft für Operations Research (ÖGOR);Slovenian Society Informatika - Section for Operational Research;Croatian Operational Research Society, vol. 26(3), pages 629-643, September.
    21. Barro, Robert J, 1999. "Notes on Growth Accounting," Journal of Economic Growth, Springer, vol. 4(2), pages 119-137, June.
    22. Sinha, Avik & Sengupta, Tuhin & Alvarado, Rafael, 2020. "Interplay between Technological Innovation and Environmental Quality: Formulating the SDG Policies for Next 11 Economies," MPRA Paper 104247, University Library of Munich, Germany, revised 2020.
    23. Bjuggren, Carl Magnus, 2018. "Employment protection and labor productivity," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 157(C), pages 138-157.
    24. Yufei Zhang & G. Tomas M. Hult & David J. Ketchen & Roger J. Calantone, 2020. "Effects of firm-, industry-, and country-level innovation on firm performance," Marketing Letters, Springer, vol. 31(2), pages 231-245, September.
    25. Hür Bütün & Ivan Kantor & François Maréchal, 2019. "An Optimisation Approach for Long-Term Industrial Investment Planning," Energies, MDPI, vol. 12(21), pages 1-33, October.
    26. Marcela Taušová & Eva Mihaliková & Katarína Čulková & Beáta Stehlíková & Peter Tauš & Dušan Kudelas & Ľubomír Štrba, 2019. "Recycling of Communal Waste: Current State and Future Potential for Sustainable Development in the EU," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(10), pages 1-16, May.
    27. Doytch, Nadia & Narayan, Seema, 2016. "Does FDI influence renewable energy consumption? An analysis of sectoral FDI impact on renewable and non-renewable industrial energy consumption," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 54(C), pages 291-301.
    28. Piera Centobelli & Roberto Cerchione & Davide Chiaroni & Pasquale Del Vecchio & Andrea Urbinati, 2020. "Designing business models in circular economy: A systematic literature review and research agenda," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 29(4), pages 1734-1749, May.
    29. Erik P. Gilje & Jerome P. Taillard, 2016. "Do Private Firms Invest Differently than Public Firms? Taking Cues from the Natural Gas Industry," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 71(4), pages 1733-1778, August.
    30. Bjuggren, Carl Magnus, 2013. "The Effect of Employment Protection Rules on Firm Productivity - A Natural Experiment," HUI Working Papers 82, HUI Research, revised 30 Oct 2013.
    31. Ghosal, Vivek, 1991. "Demand Uncertainty and the Capital-Labor Ratio: Evidence from the U.S. Manufacturing Sector," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 73(1), pages 157-161, February.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Antonio Mihi-Ramirez & Elias Melchor-Ferrer & Yolanda Garcia-Rodriguez, 2022. "Why Do Regions Differ in Growth? The Productivity of the Eurozone and Its Contribution to the Added Value of Its European Neighbors," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(18), pages 1-18, September.
    2. Eliška Svobodová & Radka Redlichová & Gabriela Chmelíková & Ivana Blažková, 2022. "Are the Agricultural Subsidies Based on the Farm Size Justified? Empirical Evidence from the Czech Republic," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 12(10), pages 1-18, September.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. de la Higuera-Molina, Emilio José & Campos-Alba, Cristina María & López-Pérez, Germán & Zafra-Gómez, José Luis, 2023. "Efficiency of water service management alternatives in Spain considering environmental factors," Utilities Policy, Elsevier, vol. 84(C).
    2. Bruno Michel Roman Pais Seles & Janaina Mascarenhas & Ana Beatriz Lopes de Sousa Jabbour & Adriana Hoffman Trevisan, 2022. "Smoothing the circular economy transition: The role of resources and capabilities enablers," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 31(4), pages 1814-1837, May.
    3. Patricia van Loon & Luk N. Van Wassenhove & Ales Mihelic, 2022. "Designing a circular business strategy: 7 years of evolution at a large washing machine manufacturer," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 31(3), pages 1030-1041, March.
    4. Dragan Tevdovski & Katerina Tosevska-Trpcevska & Elena Makrevska Disoska, 2017. "What is the role of innovation in productivity growth in Central and Eastern European countries?," The Economics of Transition, The European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, vol. 25(3), pages 527-551, July.
    5. Ida D'Attoma & Silvia Pacei, 2018. "Evaluating the Effects of Product Innovation on the Performance of European Firms by Using the Generalised Propensity Score," German Economic Review, Verein für Socialpolitik, vol. 19(1), pages 94-112, February.
    6. Graziano Abrate & Federico Boffa & Fabrizio Erbetta & Davide Vannoni, 2018. "Voters’ Information, Corruption, and the Efficiency of Local Public Services," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(12), pages 1-22, December.
    7. Pina Puntillo & Carmela Gulluscio & Donald Huisingh & Stefania Veltri, 2021. "Reevaluating waste as a resource under a circular economy approach from a system perspective: Findings from a case study," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 30(2), pages 968-984, February.
    8. Ramadani, Veland & Hisrich, Robert D. & Abazi-Alili, Hyrije & Dana, Léo-Paul & Panthi, Laxman & Abazi-Bexheti, Lejla, 2019. "Product innovation and firm performance in transition economies: A multi-stage estimation approach," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 140(C), pages 271-280.
    9. Huang, Geng & He, Ling-Yun & Lin, Xi, 2023. "Deterioration or improvement? Intermediate product import and enterprises' environmental performance," Structural Change and Economic Dynamics, Elsevier, vol. 65(C), pages 139-150.
    10. Andreas Bergh & Christian Bjørnskov, 2021. "Does economic freedom boost growth for everyone?," Kyklos, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 74(2), pages 170-186, May.
    11. Campos-Alba, Cristina M. & Prior, Diego & Pérez-López, Gemma & Zafra-Gómez, Jose L., 2020. "Long-term cost efficiency of alternative management forms for urban public transport from the public sector perspective," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 88(C), pages 16-23.
    12. Romano, Giulia & Molinos-Senante, María & Carosi, Laura & Llanquileo-Melgarejo, Paula & Sala-Garrido, Ramón & Mocholi-Arce, Manuel, 2021. "Assessing the dynamic eco-efficiency of Italian municipalities by accounting for the ownership of the entrusted waste utilities," Utilities Policy, Elsevier, vol. 73(C).
    13. Lopez-Rodriguez, Jesus & Martinez-Lopez, Diego, 2017. "Looking beyond the R&D effects on innovation: The contribution of non-R&D activities to total factor productivity growth in the EU," Structural Change and Economic Dynamics, Elsevier, vol. 40(C), pages 37-45.
    14. Chaudhary,Sarur & Sharma,Siddharth, 2022. "The Impact of Lifting Firing Restrictions on Firms : Evidence from a State-Level LaborLaw Amendment," Policy Research Working Paper Series 10039, The World Bank.
    15. Wadho, Waqar & Chaudhry, Azam, 2020. "Innovation Strategies and Productivity Growth in Developing Countries: Evidence from Pakistan," GLO Discussion Paper Series 466, Global Labor Organization (GLO).
    16. Alpysbayeva, Dinara & Vanormelingen, Stijn, 2022. "Labor market rigidities and misallocation: Evidence from a natural experiment," Labour Economics, Elsevier, vol. 78(C).
    17. Max Nathan & Anna Rosso, 2017. "Innovative events," Development Working Papers 429, Centro Studi Luca d'Agliano, University of Milano, revised 08 Apr 2019.
    18. Alena Zemplinerová & Eva Hromádková, 2012. "Determinants of Firm's Innovation," Prague Economic Papers, Prague University of Economics and Business, vol. 2012(4), pages 487-503.
    19. Vu, Khuong & Hartley, Kris, 2022. "Sources of transport sector labor productivity performance in industrialized countries: Insights from a decomposition analysis," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 129(C), pages 204-218.
    20. Schubert, Torben & Jäger, Angela & Türkeli, Serdar & Visentin, Fabiana, 2020. "Addressing the productivity paradox with big data: A literature review and adaptation of the CDM econometric model," MERIT Working Papers 2020-050, United Nations University - Maastricht Economic and Social Research Institute on Innovation and Technology (MERIT).

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:12:y:2020:i:24:p:10300-:d:459503. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.