Des billets verts pour des enterprises agricoles vertes
Abstract[paper in French] The conventional wisdom about environmental protection is that it comes at an additional cost on farmers imposed by the government, which may erode their global competitiveness. In fact, there are many ways through which improving the environmental performance of a farm can lead to a better economic performance, and not necessarily to an increase in cost. In this article, it is shown with short case studies how the Porter’s hypothesis can be applied to the agricultural sector. Following the framework developed by Lankoski (2006), and Ambec and Lanoie (2008), we argue, first, that a better environmental performance can lead to an increase in revenues through the following channels: a better access to certain markets, the possibility to differentiate products and the possibility to sell pollution-control technology. Second, a better environmental performance can lead to cost reductions in the following categories: regulatory cost; cost of material and energy; costs of capital and of labour.
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 INRA Department of Economics in its journal Review of Agricultural and Environmental Studies.
Volume (Year): 90 (2009)
Issue (Month): 2 ()
Contact details of provider:
Postal: 4, Allée Adolphe Bobierre, CS 61103, 35011 Rennes Cedex
Web page: http://www.necplus.eu/action/displayJournal?jid=RAE
More information through EDIRC
Porter hypothesis; agricultural firms; innovation; environmental performance;
Find related papers by JEL classification:
- L21 - Industrial Organization - - Firm Objectives, Organization, and Behavior - - - Business Objectives of the Firm
- M11 - Business Administration and Business Economics; Marketing; Accounting - - Business Administration - - - Production Management
- Q52 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Environmental Economics - - - Pollution Control Costs; Distributional Effects; Employment Effects
- Q55 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Environmental Economics - - - Environmental Economics: Technological Innovation
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.:
- Donald Marron, 2003. "Greener Public Purchasing as an Environmental Policy Instrument," OECD Journal on Budgeting, OECD Publishing, vol. 3(4), pages 71-105.
- Gilles Grolleau & Naoufel Mzoughi & Alban Thomas, 2007.
"What drives agrifood firms to register for an Environmental Management System?,"
European Review of Agricultural Economics,
Foundation for the European Review of Agricultural Economics, vol. 34(2), pages 233-255, June.
- Gilles Grolleau & Naoufel Mzoughi & Alban Thomas, 2007. "What drives agrifood firms to register for an Environmental Management System?," Working Papers 25027, Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique, France.
- Xepapadeas, Anastasios & de Zeeuw, Aart, 1999.
"Environmental Policy and Competitiveness: The Porter Hypothesis and the Composition of Capital,"
Journal of Environmental Economics and Management,
Elsevier, vol. 37(2), pages 165-182, March.
- Xepapadeas, A. & Zeeuw, A.J. de, 1998. "Environmental Policy and Competitiveness: The Porter Hypothesis and the Composition of Capital," Discussion Paper 1998-38, Tilburg University, Center for Economic Research.
- Xepapadeas, A. & Zeeuw, A.J. de, 1999. "Environmental policy and competitiveness: The Porter hypothesis and the composition of capital," Open Access publications from Tilburg University urn:nbn:nl:ui:12-80402, Tilburg University.
- 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.
- Mohr, Robert D., 2002. "Technical Change, External Economies, and the Porter Hypothesis," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 43(1), pages 158-168, January.
- Wall, Ellen & Weersink, Alfons & Swanton, Clarence, 2001. "Agriculture and ISO 14000," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 26(1), pages 35-48, February.
- Franz Hackl & Martin Halla & Gerald J. Pruckner, 2007. "Local compensation payments for agri-environmental externalities: a panel data analysis of bargaining outcomes," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Foundation for the European Review of Agricultural Economics, vol. 34(3), pages 295-320, September.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Nathalie Saux-Nogues).
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.