Corporate Lobbying, Regulatory Conduct and the Porter Hypothesis
AbstractMichael Porter, the influential Harvard management guru, has promoted the idea that compliance with stricter environmental regulations can afford ‘secondary’ benefits to firms through improved product design, innovation, corporate morale and in other ways. Once these secondary benefits are factored, the net cost of compliance is argued to be lower than conventionally thought and may even be negative. Whilst environmental economists have rejected the ‘Porter Hypothesis’ as being based on excessively optimistic expectations of the likely size of such secondary benefits the underlying ideas do enjoy significant credence in the business community. In the context of a lobbying model of regulatory policy-making we argue that the EPA should change the way it conducts regulatory policy to take account of Porter's views – even if it knows those views to be misguided. The model serves to illustrate the more general point that ‘fashions’ in management thinking can be expected to impact the optimal conduct of regulatory policy. Copyright Kluwer Academic Publishers 1999
Download InfoIf you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
Bibliographic InfoArticle provided by European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists in its journal Environmental and Resource Economics.
Volume (Year): 13 (1999)
Issue (Month): 2 (March)
Contact details of provider:
Web page: http://www.springerlink.com/link.asp?id=100263
corporate beliefs; environmental regulation; lobbying;
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
- Arye L. Hillman & John G. Riley, 1987.
"Politically Contestable Rents and Transfers,"
UCLA Economics Working Papers
452, UCLA Department of Economics.
- Adam B. Jaffe et al., 1995. "Environmental Regulation and the Competitiveness of U.S. Manufacturing: What Does the Evidence Tell Us?," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 33(1), pages 132-163, March.
- Karen Palmer & Wallace E. Oates & Paul R. Portney, 1995. "Tightening Environmental Standards: The Benefit-Cost or the No-Cost Paradigm?," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 9(4), pages 119-132, Fall.
- Heyes, Anthony G., 1997. "Environmental Regulation by Private Contest," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 63(3), pages 407-428, February.
- Pittel, Karen & Rübbelke, Dirk T.G., 2008.
"Climate policy and ancillary benefits: A survey and integration into the modelling of international negotiations on climate change,"
Elsevier, vol. 68(1-2), pages 210-220, December.
- Pittel, Karen & Rübbelke, Dirk T. G., 2007. "Climate Policy and Ancillary Benefits: A Survey and Integration into the Modelling of International Negotiations on Climate Change," ZEW Discussion Papers 07-064, ZEW - Zentrum für Europäische Wirtschaftsforschung / Center for European Economic Research.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Guenther Eichhorn) or (Christopher F. Baum).
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.