IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/kap/empiri/v49y2022i2d10.1007_s10663-021-09517-6.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Policy instruments and self-reported impacts of the adoption of energy saving technologies in the DACH region

Author

Listed:
  • Michael Peneder

    (Austrian Institute of Economic Research (WIFO))

  • Spyros Arvanitis

    (ETH Zürich, KOF Swiss Economic Institute)

  • Christian Rammer

    (Center for European Economic Research (ZEW))

  • Tobias Stucki

    (Bern University of Applied Sciences)

  • Martin Wörter

    (ETH Zürich, KOF Swiss Economic Institute)

Abstract

Using a large sample of enterprises from a survey that was simultaneously conducted in Germany, Austria and Switzerland, we study the self-reported impacts of the adoption of “green” energy saving and related technologies (GETs). Our specific interest is in how different policy instruments associate with energy efficiency, the reduction of $$\hbox {CO}_{2}$$ CO 2 emissions, and competitiveness at the firm level. A first set of equations tracks how policy relates to the adoption of green energy technologies in distinct areas such as production, transport, buildings, ICT or renewables. In a second set of equations, we test the perceived impacts of adoption by the managers of the firms. The results confirm a differentiated pattern of varied transmission mechanisms through which policy can affect energy efficiency and $$\hbox {CO}_{2}$$ CO 2 emissions, while on average having a neutral impact on the firms’ competitiveness. Further, discarding the conventional dichotomy between incentive-based versus command-and-control type instruments, the results suggest to pursue a comprehensive policy mix, where standards, taxes and subsidies each capitalize on different transmission mechanisms.

Suggested Citation

  • Michael Peneder & Spyros Arvanitis & Christian Rammer & Tobias Stucki & Martin Wörter, 2022. "Policy instruments and self-reported impacts of the adoption of energy saving technologies in the DACH region," Empirica, Springer;Austrian Institute for Economic Research;Austrian Economic Association, vol. 49(2), pages 369-404, May.
  • Handle: RePEc:kap:empiri:v:49:y:2022:i:2:d:10.1007_s10663-021-09517-6
    DOI: 10.1007/s10663-021-09517-6
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10663-021-09517-6
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s10663-021-09517-6?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Bretschger, Lucas, 2020. "Malthus in the light of climate change," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 127(C).
    2. Kenneth Gillingham & Karen Palmer, 2014. "Bridging the Energy Efficiency Gap: Policy Insights from Economic Theory and Empirical Evidence," Review of Environmental Economics and Policy, Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 8(1), pages 18-38, January.
    3. Gallagher, Kelly Sims & Muehlegger, Erich, 2011. "Giving green to get green? Incentives and consumer adoption of hybrid vehicle technology," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 61(1), pages 1-15, January.
    4. Elias Asproudis & Nadeem Khan & Nada Korac-Kakabadse, 2019. "Game of Regional Environmental Policy: Europe and US," Journal of Industry, Competition and Trade, Springer, vol. 19(1), pages 1-20, March.
    5. Rogge, Karoline S. & Schleich, Joachim, 2018. "Do policy mix characteristics matter for low-carbon innovation? A survey-based exploration of renewable power generation technologies in Germany," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 47(9), pages 1639-1654.
    6. Daron Acemoglu & Philippe Aghion & Leonardo Bursztyn & David Hemous, 2012. "The Environment and Directed Technical Change," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 102(1), pages 131-166, February.
    7. Karen Palmer & Wallace E. Oates & Paul R. Portney & Karen Palmer & Wallace E. Oates & Paul R. Portney, 2004. "Tightening Environmental Standards: The Benefit-Cost or the No-Cost Paradigm?," Chapters, in: Environmental Policy and Fiscal Federalism, chapter 3, pages 53-66, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    8. Horbach, Jens & Rammer, Christian & Rennings, Klaus, 2012. "Determinants of eco-innovations by type of environmental impact — The role of regulatory push/pull, technology push and market pull," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 78(C), pages 112-122.
    9. Robert N. Stavins, 2011. "The Problem of the Commons: Still Unsettled after 100 Years," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 101(1), pages 81-108, February.
    10. Mark A. Cohen & Adeline Tubb, 2018. "The Impact of Environmental Regulation on Firm and Country Competitiveness: A Meta-analysis of the Porter Hypothesis," Journal of the Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, University of Chicago Press, vol. 5(2), pages 371-399.
    11. David Popp, 2019. "Environmental policy and innovation: a decade of research," CESifo Working Paper Series 7544, CESifo.
    12. Christos Constantatos & Markus Herrmann, 2011. "Market Inertia and the Introduction of Green Products: Can Strategic Effects Justify the Porter Hypothesis?," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 50(2), pages 267-284, October.
    13. Millner, Antony & Olivier, Helene, 2016. "Beliefs, politics, and environmental policy," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 67299, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    14. Popp David, 2005. "Uncertain R&D and the Porter Hypothesis," The B.E. Journal of Economic Analysis & Policy, De Gruyter, vol. 4(1), pages 1-16, June.
    15. Klaus S. Friesenbichler & Michael Peneder, 2016. "Innovation, Competition and Productivity. Firm Level Evidence for Eastern Europe and Central Asia," WIFO Working Papers 516, WIFO.
    16. Daron Acemoglu & Ufuk Akcigit & Douglas Hanley & William Kerr, 2016. "Transition to Clean Technology," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 124(1), pages 52-104.
    17. Jaffe, Adam B. & Newell, Richard G. & Stavins, Robert N., 2005. "A tale of two market failures: Technology and environmental policy," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 54(2-3), pages 164-174, August.
    18. Stefan Ambec & Mark A. Cohen & Stewart Elgie & Paul Lanoie, 2013. "The Porter Hypothesis at 20: Can Environmental Regulation Enhance Innovation and Competitiveness?," Review of Environmental Economics and Policy, Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 7(1), pages 2-22, January.
    19. John Foster, 2015. "Energy, Knowledge and Economic Growth," Economic Complexity and Evolution, in: Andreas Pyka & John Foster (ed.), The Evolution of Economic and Innovation Systems, edition 127, pages 9-39, Springer.
    20. Buenstorf, Guido, 2000. "Self-organization and sustainability: energetics of evolution and implications for ecological economics," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 33(1), pages 119-134, April.
    21. Martin Woerter & Tobias Stucki, 2016. "Intra-Firm Diffusion of Green Energy Technologies and the Choice of Policy Instruments," KOF Working papers 16-401, KOF Swiss Economic Institute, ETH Zurich.
    22. Joltreau, Eugénie & Sommerfeld, Katrin, 2016. "Why does emissions trading under the EU ETS not affect firms' competitiveness? Empirical findings from the literature," ZEW Discussion Papers 16-062, ZEW - Leibniz Centre for European Economic Research.
    23. R. H. Coase, 2013. "The Problem of Social Cost," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 56(4), pages 837-877.
    24. Antony Millner & Hélène Ollivier, 2016. "Beliefs, Politics, and Environmental Policy," Review of Environmental Economics and Policy, Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 10(2), pages 226-244.
    25. Bronwyn H. Hall & Nathan Rosenberg (ed.), 2010. "Handbook of the Economics of Innovation," Handbook of the Economics of Innovation, Elsevier, edition 1, volume 1, number 1.
    26. Adam B. Jaffe & Karen Palmer, 1997. "Environmental Regulation And Innovation: A Panel Data Study," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 79(4), pages 610-619, November.
    27. Michael Peneder, 2017. "Competitiveness and industrial policy: from rationalities of failure towards the ability to evolve," Cambridge Journal of Economics, Cambridge Political Economy Society, vol. 41(3), pages 829-858.
    28. Madhu Khanna & George Deltas & Donna Harrington, 2009. "Adoption of Pollution Prevention Techniques: The Role of Management Systems and Regulatory Pressures," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 44(1), pages 85-106, September.
    29. Popp, David, 2019. "Environmental Policy and Innovation: A Decade of Research," International Review of Environmental and Resource Economics, now publishers, vol. 13(3-4), pages 265-337, September.
    30. Rammer, Christian & Gottschalk, Sandra & Peneder, Michael & Wörter, Martin & Stucki, Tobias & Arvanitis, Spyros, 2017. "Does energy policy hurt international competitiveness of firms? A comparative study for Germany, Switzerland and Austria," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 109(C), pages 154-180.
    31. Paul Lanoie & Jérémy Laurent‐Lucchetti & Nick Johnstone & Stefan Ambec, 2011. "Environmental Policy, Innovation and Performance: New Insights on the Porter Hypothesis," Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 20(3), pages 803-842, September.
    32. Kenneth J. Arrow & Anthony C. Fisher, 1974. "Environmental Preservation, Uncertainty, and Irreversibility," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 88(2), pages 312-319.
    33. William Nordhaus, 2019. "Climate Change: The Ultimate Challenge for Economics," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 109(6), pages 1991-2014, June.
    34. George van Leeuwen & Pierre Mohnen, 2017. "Revisiting the Porter hypothesis: an empirical analysis of Green innovation for the Netherlands," Economics of Innovation and New Technology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 26(1-2), pages 63-77, February.
    35. Jeroen Bergh, 2007. "Evolutionary thinking in environmental economics," Journal of Evolutionary Economics, Springer, vol. 17(5), pages 521-549, October.
    36. Sascha Rexhäuser & Christian Rammer, 2014. "Environmental Innovations and Firm Profitability: Unmasking the Porter Hypothesis," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 57(1), pages 145-167, January.
    37. Fouquet, Roger, 2014. "Long run demand for energy services: income and price elasticities over two hundred years," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 59070, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    38. Giovanni Marin & Francesca Lotti, 2017. "Productivity effects of eco-innovations using data on eco-patents," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press and the Associazione ICC, vol. 26(1), pages 125-148.
    39. Roger Fouquet, 2014. "Editor's Choice Long-Run Demand for Energy Services: Income and Price Elasticities over Two Hundred Years," Review of Environmental Economics and Policy, Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 8(2), pages 186-207.
    40. David Popp, 2019. "Environmental Policy and Innovation: A Decade of Research," NBER Working Papers 25631, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    41. Michael Peneder & Martin Woerter, 2014. "Competition, R&D and innovation: testing the inverted-U in a simultaneous system," Journal of Evolutionary Economics, Springer, vol. 24(3), pages 653-687, July.
    42. Gene M. Grossman & Alan B. Krueger, 1995. "Economic Growth and the Environment," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 110(2), pages 353-377.
    43. Harold Hotelling, 1931. "The Economics of Exhaustible Resources," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 39, pages 137-137.
    44. Elinor Ostrom, 2010. "Beyond Markets and States: Polycentric Governance of Complex Economic Systems," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 100(3), pages 641-672, June.
    45. Popp, David & Newell, Richard G. & Jaffe, Adam B., 2010. "Energy, the Environment, and Technological Change," Handbook of the Economics of Innovation, in: Bronwyn H. Hall & Nathan Rosenberg (ed.), Handbook of the Economics of Innovation, edition 1, volume 2, chapter 0, pages 873-937, Elsevier.
    46. George E. Halkos & Shunsuke Managi, 2017. "Measuring the Effect of Economic Growth on Countries’ Environmental Efficiency: A Conditional Directional Distance Function Approach," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 68(3), pages 753-775, November.
    47. Lorenzo Cappellari & Stephen P. Jenkins, 2003. "Multivariate probit regression using simulated maximum likelihood," Stata Journal, StataCorp LP, vol. 3(3), pages 278-294, September.
    48. Angela Köppl & Margit Schratzenstaller, 2015. "The Austrian Tax System – Status Quo," WIFO Bulletin, WIFO, vol. 20(5), pages 55-71, April.
    49. Carl Pasurka, 2008. "Perspectives on Pollution Abatement and Competitiveness: Theory, Data, and Analyses," Review of Environmental Economics and Policy, Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 2(2), pages 194-218, Summer.
    50. Klaus Friesenbichler & Michael Peneder, 2016. "Innovation, competition and productivity," The Economics of Transition, The European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, vol. 24(3), pages 535-580, July.
    51. Daniela Kletzan-Slamanig & Angela Köppl, 2016. "Umweltschädliche Subventionen in den Bereichen Energie und Verkehr," WIFO Monatsberichte (monthly reports), WIFO, vol. 89(8), pages 605-615, August.
    52. Andr, Francisco J. & Gonzlez, Paula & Porteiro, Nicols, 2009. "Strategic quality competition and the Porter Hypothesis," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 57(2), pages 182-194, March.
    53. Imad A. Moosa, 2017. "The econometrics of the environmental Kuznets curve: an illustration using Australian CO2 emissions," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 49(49), pages 4927-4945, October.
    54. Weitzman, Martin L., 1998. "Why the Far-Distant Future Should Be Discounted at Its Lowest Possible Rate," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 36(3), pages 201-208, November.
    55. Costantini, Valeria & Crespi, Francesco & Martini, Chiara & Pennacchio, Luca, 2015. "Demand-pull and technology-push public support for eco-innovation: The case of the biofuels sector," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 44(3), pages 577-595.
    56. Martin Wörter & Michael Peneder & Mark Thompson, 2019. "The (Anti-)Competitive Effect of Intellectual Property Rights," KOF Working papers 19-454, KOF Swiss Economic Institute, ETH Zurich.
    57. Yiannis Kountouris & Kyriaki Remoundou, 2016. "Cultural Influence on Preferences and Attitudes for Environmental Quality," Kyklos, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 69(2), pages 369-397, May.
    58. Daniela Kletzan-Slamanig & Angela Köppl, 2016. "Subventionen und Steuern mit Umweltrelevanz in den Bereichen Energie und Verkehr," WIFO Studies, WIFO, number 58641, April.
    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. Hu, Hui & Qi, Shaozhou & Chen, Yuanzhi, 2023. "Using green technology for a better tomorrow: How enterprises and government utilize the carbon trading system and incentive policies," China Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 78(C).
    2. Xiaonan Fan & Sainan Ren & Yang Liu, 2023. "The Driving Factors of Green Technology Innovation Efficiency—A Study Based on the Dynamic QCA Method," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(12), pages 1-25, June.

    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. Spyros Arvanitis & Michael Peneder & Christian Rammer & Tobias Stucki & Martin Wörter, 2016. "Competitiveness and ecological impacts of green energy technologies: firm-level evidence for the DACH region," KOF Working papers 16-420, KOF Swiss Economic Institute, ETH Zurich.
    2. Rammer, Christian & Gottschalk, Sandra & Peneder, Michael & Wörter, Martin & Stucki, Tobias & Arvanitis, Spyros, 2017. "Does energy policy hurt international competitiveness of firms? A comparative study for Germany, Switzerland and Austria," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 109(C), pages 154-180.
    3. Cui, Yi & Du, Xiaodong & Ma, Jiujie, 2020. "Agricultural Water right reforms and Irrigation Water Demand: A Quasi-Natural Experiment in China," 2020 Annual Meeting, July 26-28, Kansas City, Missouri 304364, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    4. Spyros Arvanitis & Michael Peneder & Christian Rammer & Tobias Stucki & Martin Wörter, 2016. "How Different Policy Instruments Affect the Creation of Green Energy Innovation: A Differentiated Perspective," KOF Working papers 16-417, KOF Swiss Economic Institute, ETH Zurich.
    5. Giovanni Marin & Francesca Lotti, 2017. "Productivity effects of eco-innovations using data on eco-patents," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press and the Associazione ICC, vol. 26(1), pages 125-148.
    6. Cameron Hepburn & Jacquelyn Pless & David Popp, 2018. "Policy Brief—Encouraging Innovation that Protects Environmental Systems: Five Policy Proposals," Review of Environmental Economics and Policy, Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 12(1), pages 154-169.
    7. Samant, Shantala & Thakur-Wernz, Pooja & Hatfield, Donald E., 2020. "Does the focus of renewable energy policy impact the nature of innovation? Evidence from emerging economies," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 137(C).
    8. Aliénor Cameron & Marc Baudry, 2023. "The case for carbon leakage and border adjustments: where do economists stand?," Environmental Economics and Policy Studies, Springer;Society for Environmental Economics and Policy Studies - SEEPS, vol. 25(3), pages 435-469, July.
    9. Zhuanlan Sun & Demi Zhu, 2023. "Investigating environmental regulation effects on technological innovation: A meta-regression analysis," Energy & Environment, , vol. 34(3), pages 463-492, May.
    10. Stucki, Tobias, 2019. "Which firms benefit from investments in green energy technologies? – The effect of energy costs," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(3), pages 546-555.
    11. Luca Lambertini & Giuseppe Pignataro & Alessandro Tampieri, 2022. "Competition among coalitions in a cournot industry: a validation of the porter hypothesis," The Japanese Economic Review, Springer, vol. 73(4), pages 679-713, October.
    12. Alessandra Colombelli & Jackie Krafft & Francesco Quatraro, 2021. "Firms’ growth, green gazelles and eco-innovation: evidence from a sample of European firms," Small Business Economics, Springer, vol. 56(4), pages 1721-1738, April.
    13. Galeotti, Marzio & Salini, Silvia & Verdolini, Elena, 2020. "Measuring environmental policy stringency: Approaches, validity, and impact on environmental innovation and energy efficiency," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 136(C).
    14. Flavio Delbono & Luca Lambertini, 2022. "Optimal emission taxation and the Porter hypothesis under Bertrand competition," Annals of Public and Cooperative Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 93(3), pages 755-765, September.
    15. Orsatti, Gianluca & Quatraro, Francesco & Pezzoni, Michele, 2020. "The antecedents of green technologies: The role of team-level recombinant capabilities," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 49(3).
    16. Pinget, Amandine, 2016. "Spécificités des déterminants des innovations environnementales : une approche appliquée aux PME [Specificities of determinants for environmental innovation : an approach applied to SMEs]," MPRA Paper 80108, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    17. Antoine Dechezleprêtre & Misato Sato, 2017. "The Impacts of Environmental Regulations on Competitiveness," Review of Environmental Economics and Policy, Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 11(2), pages 183-206.
    18. Jean Pierre Huiban & Camilla Mastromarco & Antonio Musolesi & Michel Simioni, 2018. "The impact of pollution abatement investments on production technology: a nonparametric approach," SEEDS Working Papers 0918, SEEDS, Sustainability Environmental Economics and Dynamics Studies, revised Sep 2018.
    19. Spyros Arvanitis & Michael Peneder & Christian Rammer & Tobias Stucki & Martin Wörter, 2016. "Development and Utilization of Energy-related Technologies, Economic Performance and the Role of Policy Instruments," KOF Working papers 16-419, KOF Swiss Economic Institute, ETH Zurich.
    20. Hille, Erik & Althammer, Wilhelm & Diederich, Henning, 2020. "Environmental regulation and innovation in renewable energy technologies: Does the policy instrument matter?," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 153(C).

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Environmental policy; Energy efficiency; Technology adoption; Innovation; Porter hypothesis;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • Q48 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Energy - - - Government Policy
    • Q55 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Environmental Economics - - - Environmental Economics: Technological Innovation
    • O13 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Economic Development - - - Agriculture; Natural Resources; Environment; Other Primary Products
    • O25 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Development Planning and Policy - - - Industrial Policy
    • O33 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Innovation; Research and Development; Technological Change; Intellectual Property Rights - - - Technological Change: Choices and Consequences; Diffusion Processes

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:kap:empiri:v:49:y:2022:i:2:d:10.1007_s10663-021-09517-6. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.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.