IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/revint/v14y2019i3d10.1007_s11558-018-9318-3.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Who opposes climate regulation? Business preferences for the European emission trading scheme

Author

Listed:
  • Federica Genovese

    (University of Essex)

  • Endre Tvinnereim

    (University of Bergen)

Abstract

When do firms oppose international climate policy? Existing work often assumes that firms disapprove of climate regulation due to the immediate costs of compliance. We claim that if policy is implemented gradually, private preferences for climate policy vary as a function of its progressive stringency. That is, supportive views may rise in the initial phase of the policy, while opposing views may emerge as the policy becomes more stringent. We also argue that emissions of individual companies, as well as emissions levels in their respective sectors, influence corporate positions on these two dimensions. We test our argument with new corporate survey data on the European Union Emission Trading Scheme (EU ETS). We find that firms’ views on the performance of the EU ETS vary based on whether they concentrate on the policy’s current state or its future, more stringent development. Moreover, we find that individual firm and sectoral emissions correlate with support for the early-stage, more lenient version of the ETS, but that high-emission firms are more interested in disinvesting and relocating if the ETS becomes stricter. Our findings imply that both firm and sectoral organization can constrain environmental regulation, and that domestic compensation, especially at early stages, can have important effects on the continuity of climate policy.

Suggested Citation

  • Federica Genovese & Endre Tvinnereim, 2019. "Who opposes climate regulation? Business preferences for the European emission trading scheme," The Review of International Organizations, Springer, vol. 14(3), pages 511-542, September.
  • Handle: RePEc:spr:revint:v:14:y:2019:i:3:d:10.1007_s11558-018-9318-3
    DOI: 10.1007/s11558-018-9318-3
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11558-018-9318-3
    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/s11558-018-9318-3?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. 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.
    2. Richard E. Baldwin & Rikard Forslid, 2010. "Trade Liberalization with Heterogeneous Firms," Review of Development Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 14(2), pages 161-176, May.
    3. Elhanan Helpman & Marc J. Melitz & Stephen R. Yeaple, 2004. "Export Versus FDI with Heterogeneous Firms," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 94(1), pages 300-316, March.
    4. Damania, Richard & Fredriksson, Per G. & List, John A., 2003. "Trade liberalization, corruption, and environmental policy formation: theory and evidence," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 46(3), pages 490-512, November.
    5. Thomas Bernauer & Tobias Böhmelt & Vally Koubi, 2013. "Is There a Democracy–Civil Society Paradox in Global Environmental Governance?," Global Environmental Politics, MIT Press, vol. 13(1), pages 88-107, February.
    6. Cao, Xun & Prakash, Aseem, 2010. "Trade Competition and Domestic Pollution: A Panel Study, 1980–2003," International Organization, Cambridge University Press, vol. 64(3), pages 481-503, July.
    7. Kim, Sung Eun & Urpelainen, Johannes & Yang, Joonseok, 2016. "Electric utilities and American climate policy: lobbying by expected winners and losers," Journal of Public Policy, Cambridge University Press, vol. 36(2), pages 251-275, June.
    8. Margaret Roberts & Brandon Stewart & Tingley, Dustin, 2014. "stm: R Package for Structural Topic Models," Working Paper 176291, Harvard University OpenScholar.
    9. Perkins, Richard & Neumayer, Eric, 2012. "Does the ‘California effect’ operate across borders? trading- and investing-up in automobile emission standards," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 42097, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    10. Margaret E. Roberts & Brandon M. Stewart & Dustin Tingley & Christopher Lucas & Jetson Leder‐Luis & Shana Kushner Gadarian & Bethany Albertson & David G. Rand, 2014. "Structural Topic Models for Open‐Ended Survey Responses," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 58(4), pages 1064-1082, October.
    11. Matthew Paterson, 2012. "Who and what are carbon markets for? Politics and the development of climate policy," Climate Policy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 12(1), pages 82-97, January.
    12. Sarah M. Brooks & Marcus J. Kurtz, 2007. "Capital, Trade, and the Political Economies of Reform," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 51(4), pages 703-720, October.
    13. Jonas Meckling, 2015. "Oppose, Support, or Hedge? Distributional Effects, Regulatory Pressure, and Business Strategy in Environmental Politics," Global Environmental Politics, MIT Press, vol. 15(2), pages 19-37, May.
    14. Levy, David L. & Kolk, Ans, 2002. "Strategic Responses to Global Climate Change: Conflicting Pressures on Multinationals in the Oil Industry," Business and Politics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 4(3), pages 275-300, November.
    15. Tim Büthe & Walter Mattli, 2011. "The New Global Rulers: The Privatization of Regulation in the World Economy," Economics Books, Princeton University Press, edition 1, number 9470.
    16. Levy David L. & Kolk Ans, 2002. "Strategic Responses to Global Climate Change: Conflicting Pressures on Multinationals in the Oil Industry," Business and Politics, De Gruyter, vol. 4(3), pages 1-27, November.
    17. Thomas P. Lyon & John W. Maxwell, 2008. "Corporate Social Responsibility and the Environment: A Theoretical Perspective," Review of Environmental Economics and Policy, Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 2(2), pages 240-260, Summer.
    18. Fernandez, Raquel & Rodrik, Dani, 1991. "Resistance to Reform: Status Quo Bias in the Presence of Individual-Specific Uncertainty," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 81(5), pages 1146-1155, December.
    19. Venkatachalam, L., 2008. "Behavioral economics for environmental policy," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 67(4), pages 640-645, November.
    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. Marcel Lumkowsky & Emily K. Carlton & David G. Victor & Astrid Dannenberg, 2023. "Determining the willingness to link climate and trade policy," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 176(10), pages 1-24, October.
    2. Weiming Lin & Jianling Chen & Jianbang Gan & Yongwu Dai, 2022. "Do Firms That Are Disadvantaged by Unilateral Climate Policy Receive Compensation? Evidence from China’s Energy-Saving Quota Policy," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(22), pages 1-20, November.
    3. Giorgos Galanis & Giorgio Ricchiuti & Ben Tippet, 2022. "The Global Political Economy of a Green Transition," Working Papers - Economics wp2022_22.rdf, Universita' degli Studi di Firenze, Dipartimento di Scienze per l'Economia e l'Impresa.
    4. Stocker Klaus, 2020. "Financial and Economic Assessment of Tidal Stream Energy—A Case Study," IJFS, MDPI, vol. 8(3), pages 1-20, August.
    5. Aklin, Michaël, 2021. "Do high electricity bills undermine public support for renewables? Evidence from the European Union," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 156(C).
    6. Jared Cory & Michael Lerner & Iain Osgood, 2021. "Supply Chain Linkages and the Extended Carbon Coalition," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 65(1), pages 69-87, January.
    7. Wei, Yigang & Gong, Ping & Zhang, Jianhong & Wang, Li, 2021. "Exploring public opinions on climate change policy in "Big Data Era"—A case study of the European Union Emission Trading System (EU-ETS) based on Twitter," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 158(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. Robert Brulle & Christian Downie, 2022. "Following the money: trade associations, political activity and climate change," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 175(3), pages 1-19, December.
    2. Jared Cory & Michael Lerner & Iain Osgood, 2021. "Supply Chain Linkages and the Extended Carbon Coalition," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 65(1), pages 69-87, January.
    3. Christian Downie, 2017. "Fighting for King Coal’s Crown: Business Actors in the US Coal and Utility Industries," Global Environmental Politics, MIT Press, vol. 17(1), pages 21-39, February.
    4. Irja Vormedal & Lars H. Gulbrandsen & Jon Birger Skjærseth, 2020. "Big Oil and Climate Regulation: Business as Usual or a Changing Business?," Global Environmental Politics, MIT Press, vol. 20(4), pages 143-166, Autumn.
    5. Lorena D’Agostino, 2015. "How MNEs respond to environmental regulation: integrating the Porter hypothesis and the pollution haven hypothesis," Economia Politica: Journal of Analytical and Institutional Economics, Springer;Fondazione Edison, vol. 32(2), pages 245-269, August.
    6. Jon Skjærseth, 2013. "Governance by EU emissions trading: resistance or innovation in the oil industry?," International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 13(1), pages 31-48, March.
    7. Sanjay Patnaik, 2020. "Emissions permit allocation and strategic firm behavior: Evidence from the oil sector in the European Union emissions trading scheme," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 29(3), pages 976-995, March.
    8. Natalie Slawinski & Jonatan Pinkse & Timo Busch & Subhabrata Bobby Banerjeed, 2014. "The role of short-termism and uncertainty in organizational inaction on climate change: multilevel framework," Working Papers hal-00961226, HAL.
    9. Binh Hoang Duc & Khang Do Ba, 2017. "Business responses to climate change: strategies for reducing greenhouse gas emissions in Vietnam," Asia Pacific Business Review, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 23(4), pages 596-620, August.
    10. Tobias Böhmelt & Jürg Vollenweider, 2015. "Information flows and social capital through linkages: the effectiveness of the CLRTAP network," International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 15(2), pages 105-123, May.
    11. Mäkitie, Tuukka & Normann, Håkon E. & Thune, Taran M. & Sraml Gonzalez, Jakoba, 2019. "The green flings: Norwegian oil and gas industry’s engagement in offshore wind power," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 127(C), pages 269-279.
    12. Jørgensen Jan Guldager & Schröder Philipp J. H., 2006. "Tariffs and Firm-Level Heterogeneous Fixed Export Costs," The B.E. Journal of Economic Analysis & Policy, De Gruyter, vol. 5(1), pages 1-17, July.
    13. Olivier Cadot & Céline Carrère & Vanessa Strauss-Kahn, 2013. "Trade Diversification, Income, And Growth: What Do We Know?," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 27(4), pages 790-812, September.
    14. Hao Tan, 2017. "Making impact through industry-focused research: An Asia Pacific perspective," Asia Pacific Journal of Management, Springer, vol. 34(3), pages 487-503, September.
    15. Gabriel Felbermayr & Benjamin Jung, 2011. "Sorting It Out: Technical Barriers to Trade and Industry Productivity," Open Economies Review, Springer, vol. 22(1), pages 93-117, February.
    16. Julia Hamprecht & Jan Schwarzkopf, 2014. "Subsidiary Initiatives in the Institutional Environment," Management International Review, Springer, vol. 54(5), pages 757-778, October.
    17. Christopher Durugbo & Joseph Amankwah‐Amoah, 2019. "Global sustainability under uncertainty: How do multinationals craft regulatory policies?," Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 26(6), pages 1500-1516, November.
    18. Xin Zhao & Gregmar I. Galinato & Tim A. Graciano, 2019. "The Welfare Effects of Opening to Foreign Direct Investment in Polluting Sectors," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 74(1), pages 243-269, September.
    19. Felbermayr, Gabriel & Prat, Julien & Schmerer, Hans-Jörg, 2011. "Globalization and labor market outcomes: Wage bargaining, search frictions, and firm heterogeneity," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 146(1), pages 39-73, January.
    20. Forslid, Rikard & Okubo, Toshihiro & Ulltveit-Moe, Karen Helene, 2018. "Why are firms that export cleaner? International trade, abatement and environmental emissions," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 91(C), pages 166-183.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    European Union; Climate policy; Corporate interests; Environmental regulation; Opinion survey;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • F53 - International Economics - - International Relations, National Security, and International Political Economy - - - International Agreements and Observance; International Organizations
    • F55 - International Economics - - International Relations, National Security, and International Political Economy - - - International Institutional Arrangements
    • K23 - Law and Economics - - Regulation and Business Law - - - Regulated Industries and Administrative Law
    • L11 - Industrial Organization - - Market Structure, Firm Strategy, and Market Performance - - - Production, Pricing, and Market Structure; Size Distribution of Firms
    • C83 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Data Collection and Data Estimation Methodology; Computer Programs - - - Survey Methods; Sampling Methods

    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:revint:v:14:y:2019:i:3:d:10.1007_s11558-018-9318-3. 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.