IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/envpol/v15y2013i1p73-91.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The many traps of green technology promotion

Author

Listed:
  • Thierry Bréchet
  • Sylvette Ly

Abstract

In this paper, we analyze the relationship between technological greening, eco-efficiency and no-regret strategies. By using a simple theoretical model we evaluate the effects of technological greening on creation value, pollution level, and eco-efficiency. We show three contrasting effects of technological greening. First, technological greening may increase the pollution of a firm, and also of the whole industry. Second, the indicator of eco-efficiency can be misleading because it may improve in situations where pollution increases and/or profit decreases after technological greening. Third, technological greening that induces an improvement of the eco-efficiency indicator does not necessarily lead to a no-regret strategy. As a result, the indicator should not be used for decision-making. These are the many traps of technology greening promotion. Copyright Springer 2013

Suggested Citation

  • Thierry Bréchet & Sylvette Ly, 2013. "The many traps of green technology promotion," Environmental Economics and Policy Studies, Springer;Society for Environmental Economics and Policy Studies - SEEPS, vol. 15(1), pages 73-91, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:envpol:v:15:y:2013:i:1:p:73-91
    DOI: 10.1007/s10018-012-0035-5
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1007/s10018-012-0035-5
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s10018-012-0035-5?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 look for a different version below or search for a different version of it.

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Brännlund, Runar & Lundgren, Tommy, 2008. "Environmental policy and profitability - Evidence from Swedish industry," Umeå Economic Studies 750, Umeå University, Department of Economics.
    2. Kjetil Telle, 2006. "“It Pays to be Green” – A Premature Conclusion?," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 35(3), pages 195-220, November.
    3. Jollands, Nigel & Lermit, Jonathan & Patterson, Murray, 2004. "Aggregate eco-efficiency indices for New Zealand – a Principal Components Analysis," 2004 Conference, June 25-26, 2004, Blenheim, New Zealand 97773, New Zealand Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.
    4. 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.
    5. Requate, Till, 1998. "Incentives to innovate under emission taxes and tradeable permits," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 14(1), pages 139-165, February.
    6. Bréchet, Thierry & Jouvet, Pierre-André, 2008. "Environmental innovation and the cost of pollution abatement revisited," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 65(2), pages 262-265, April.
    7. Rennings, Klaus & Ziegler, Andreas & Ankele, Kathrin & Hoffmann, Esther, 2006. "The influence of different characteristics of the EU environmental management and auditing scheme on technical environmental innovations and economic performance," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 57(1), pages 45-59, April.
    8. Andrew King & Michael Lenox, 2002. "Exploring the Locus of Profitable Pollution Reduction," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 48(2), pages 289-299, February.
    9. Bréchet, Thierry & Meunier, Guy, 2014. "Are clean technology and environmental quality conflicting policy goals?," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 38(C), pages 61-83.
    10. Till Requate, 1995. "Incentives to adopt new technologies under different pollution-control policies," International Tax and Public Finance, Springer;International Institute of Public Finance, vol. 2(2), pages 295-317, August.
    11. Requate, Till & Unold, Wolfram, 2003. "Environmental policy incentives to adopt advanced abatement technology:: Will the true ranking please stand up?," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 47(1), pages 125-146, February.
    12. Callens, Isabelle & Tyteca, Daniel, 1999. "Towards indicators of sustainable development for firms: A productive efficiency perspective," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 28(1), pages 41-53, January.
    13. Sinkin, Charlene & Wright, Charlotte J. & Burnett, Royce D., 2008. "Eco-efficiency and firm value," Journal of Accounting and Public Policy, Elsevier, vol. 27(2), pages 167-176.
    14. Bréchet, Thierry & Jouvet, Pierre-André, 2009. "Why environmental management may yield no-regret pollution abatement options," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(6), pages 1770-1777, April.
    15. Thierry Bréchet & Philippe Michel, 2007. "Environmental performance and equilibrium," Canadian Journal of Economics/Revue canadienne d'économique, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 40(4), pages 1078-1099, November.
    16. Jessica Coria & Magnus Hennlock, 2012. "Taxes, permits and costly policy response to technological change," Environmental Economics and Policy Studies, Springer;Society for Environmental Economics and Policy Studies - SEEPS, vol. 14(1), pages 35-60, January.
    17. Bahar Erbas, 2010. "Factors affecting innovation and pollution-reduction performance of environmental regulations," Environmental Economics and Policy Studies, Springer;Society for Environmental Economics and Policy Studies - SEEPS, vol. 12(4), pages 139-163, December.
    18. Runar Brännlund & Tommy Lundgren, 2010. "Environmental policy and profitability: evidence from Swedish industry," Environmental Economics and Policy Studies, Springer;Society for Environmental Economics and Policy Studies - SEEPS, vol. 12(1), pages 59-78, June.
    19. Glen Dowell & Stuart Hart & Bernard Yeung, 2000. "Do Corporate Global Environmental Standards Create or Destroy Market Value?," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 46(8), pages 1059-1074, August.
    20. Boons, Frank & Wagner, Marcus, 2009. "Assessing the relationship between economic and ecological performance: Distinguishing system levels and the role of innovation," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(7), pages 1908-1914, May.
    21. Berkhout, Peter H. G. & Muskens, Jos C. & W. Velthuijsen, Jan, 2000. "Defining the rebound effect," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 28(6-7), pages 425-432, June.
    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. Natalia Zugravu-Soilita, 2018. "The impact of trade in environmental goods on pollution: what are we learning from the transition economies’ experience?," Environmental Economics and Policy Studies, Springer;Society for Environmental Economics and Policy Studies - SEEPS, vol. 20(4), pages 785-827, October.
    2. Natalia Zugravu-Soilita, 2019. "Trade in Environmental Goods and Air Pollution: A Mediation Analysis to Estimate Total, Direct and Indirect Effects," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 74(3), pages 1125-1162, November.
    3. Abreu, M. Florentina & Alves, Anabela C. & Moreira, Francisco, 2017. "Lean-Green models for eco-efficient and sustainable production," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 137(C), pages 846-853.
    4. Zugravu-Soilita, Natalia, 2017. "Trade in Environmental Goods: Empirical Exploration of Direct and Indirect Effects on Pollution by Country’s Trade Status," EIA: Climate Change: Economic Impacts and Adaptation 266287, Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei (FEEM).
    5. Bramstoft, Rasmus & Pizarro-Alonso, Amalia & Jensen, Ida Græsted & Ravn, Hans & Münster, Marie, 2020. "Modelling of renewable gas and renewable liquid fuels in future integrated energy systems," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 268(C).

    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. Arguedas, Carmen & van Soest, Daan P., 2009. "On reducing the windfall profits in environmental subsidy programs," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 58(2), pages 192-205, September.
    2. Horváthová, Eva, 2010. "Does environmental performance affect financial performance? A meta-analysis," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(1), pages 52-59, November.
    3. Christoph Trumpp & Thomas Guenther, 2017. "Too Little or too much? Exploring U‐shaped Relationships between Corporate Environmental Performance and Corporate Financial Performance," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 26(1), pages 49-68, January.
    4. Jana Stoever & John P. Weche, 2018. "Environmental Regulation and Sustainable Competitiveness: Evaluating the Role of Firm-Level Green Investments in the Context of the Porter Hypothesis," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 70(2), pages 429-455, June.
    5. Tariq, Adeel & Badir, Yuosre F. & Tariq, Waqas & Bhutta, Umair Saeed, 2017. "Drivers and consequences of green product and process innovation: A systematic review, conceptual framework, and future outlook," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 51(C), pages 8-23.
    6. Sylvain Marsat & Benjamin Williams, 2013. "CSR and Market Valuation: International Evidence," Post-Print hal-02156596, HAL.
    7. Markus Hang & Jerome Geyer‐Klingeberg & Andreas W. Rathgeber, 2019. "It is merely a matter of time: A meta‐analysis of the causality between environmental performance and financial performance," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 28(2), pages 257-273, February.
    8. Perino, Grischa & Requate, Till, 2012. "Does more stringent environmental regulation induce or reduce technology adoption? When the rate of technology adoption is inverted U-shaped," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 64(3), pages 456-467.
    9. Timo Busch & Nils Lehmann & Volker H. Hoffmann, 2012. "Corporate Social Responsibility, Negative Externalities, and Financial Risk: The Case of Climate Change," Tinbergen Institute Discussion Papers 12-102/IV/DSF40, Tinbergen Institute.
    10. Garcés-Ayerbe, Concepción & Cañón-de-Francia, Joaquín, 2017. "The Relevance of Complementarities in the Study of the Economic Consequences of Environmental Proactivity: Analysis of the Moderating Effect of Innovation Efforts," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 142(C), pages 21-30.
    11. Andreas Ziegler, 2012. "Is it Beneficial to be Included in a Sustainability Stock Index? A Panel Data Study for European Firms," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 52(3), pages 301-325, July.
    12. Will Gans & Beat Hintermann, 2013. "Market Effects of Voluntary Climate Action by Firms: Evidence from the Chicago Climate Exchange," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 55(2), pages 291-308, June.
    13. Bouwe R. Dijkstra & Maria J. Gil‐Moltó, 2018. "Is emission intensity or output U‐shaped in the strictness of environmental policy?," Journal of Public Economic Theory, Association for Public Economic Theory, vol. 20(2), pages 177-201, April.
    14. Alessio D’Amato & Bouwe R. Dijkstra, 2018. "Adoption incentives and environmental policy timing under asymmetric information and strategic firm behaviour," Environmental Economics and Policy Studies, Springer;Society for Environmental Economics and Policy Studies - SEEPS, vol. 20(1), pages 125-155, January.
    15. Thierry Bréchet & Pierre-André Jouvet, 2007. "A note the cost of pollution abatement," Working Papers hal-04139224, HAL.
    16. Joaquín Cañón-de-Francia & Concepión Garcés-Ayerbe, 2019. "Factors and Contingencies for the “It Pays to Be Green Hypothesis”. The European Union’s Emissions Trading System (EU ETS) and Financial Crisis as Contexts," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 16(16), pages 1-15, August.
    17. Mehdi Fadaee & Luca Lambertini, 2015. "Non-tradeable pollution permits as green R&D incentives," Environmental Economics and Policy Studies, Springer;Society for Environmental Economics and Policy Studies - SEEPS, vol. 17(1), pages 27-42, January.
    18. Nikos Chatzistamoulou & George Diagourtas & Kostas Kounetas, 2017. "Do pollution abatement expenditures lead to higher productivity growth? Evidence from Greek manufacturing industries," Environmental Economics and Policy Studies, Springer;Society for Environmental Economics and Policy Studies - SEEPS, vol. 19(1), pages 15-34, January.
    19. Yoram Bauman & Myunghun Lee & Karl Seeley, 2008. "Does Technological Innovation Really Reduce Marginal Abatement Costs? Some Theory, Algebraic Evidence, and Policy Implications," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 40(4), pages 507-527, August.
    20. Pelin Demirel & Effie Kesidou, 2013. "The impact of environmental regulation frameworks and firm-level factors on eco-innovations: evidence from DEFRA survey of UK manufacturing firms," Chapters, in: Mehmet Ugur (ed.), Governance, Regulation and Innovation, chapter 6, pages 149-181, Edward Elgar Publishing.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Technological greening; Clean technology; Eco-efficiency; Environmental performance; Q55; Q48; Q58;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • Q55 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Environmental Economics - - - Environmental Economics: Technological Innovation
    • Q48 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Energy - - - Government Policy
    • Q58 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Environmental Economics - - - Environmental Economics: Government Policy

    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:spr:envpol:v:15:y:2013:i:1:p:73-91. 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.