This file is part of IDEAS, which uses RePEc data


[ Papers | Articles | Software | Books | Chapters | Authors | Institutions | JEL Classification | NEP reports | Search | New papers by email | Author registration | Rankings | Volunteers | FAQ | Blog | Help! ]

Environmental Policy, Innovation and Performance: New Insights on the Porter Hypothesis

Author info | Abstract | Publisher info | Download info | Related research | Statistics
Author Info
Paul Lanoie ()
Jérémy Laurent-Lucchetti
Nick Johnstone
Stefan Ambec

Additional information is available for the following registered author(s):

Abstract

Jaffe and Palmer (1997) present three distinct variants of the so-called Porter Hypothesis. The “weak” version of the hypothesis posits that environmental regulation will stimulate certain kinds of environmental innovations. The “narrow” version of the hypothesis asserts that flexible environmental policy regimes give firms greater incentive to innovate than prescriptive regulations, such as technology-based standards. Finally, the “strong” version posits that properly designed regulation may induce cost-saving innovation that more than compensates for the cost of compliance. In this paper, we test the significance of these different variants of the Porter Hypothesis using data on the four main elements of the hypothesised causality chain (environmental policy, research and development, environmental performance and commercial performance). The analysis is based upon a unique database which includes observations from approximately 4200 facilities in seven OECD countries. In general, we find strong support for the “weak” version, qualified support for the “narrow” version, and qualified support for the “strong” version as well.

Jaffe et Palmer (1997) présentent trois variantes distinctes de l’hypothèse de Porter. La version « faible » de l'hypothèse suppose que la réglementation environnementale stimulera l’apparition d’innovations dans le domaine de l’environnement. La version « étroite » de l'hypothèse affirme que les réglementations environnementales flexibles donnent aux firmes une plus grande incitation pour innover que les réglementations rigides, telles que les normes prescrivant une technologie pour une industrie donnée. Enfin, la version « forte » pose qu’une réglementation correctement conçue peut induire davantage de gains en termes d’innovation que de coûts pour se conformer à la règle. Dans cet article, nous examinons la portée de ces différentes variantes de l'hypothèse de Porter en utilisant des données sur les quatre principaux éléments de la chaîne présumée de causalité (politique environnementale, recherche et développement, performance environnementale et performance commerciale). L'analyse est fondée sur une base de données unique qui inclut des observations d'approximativement 4200 établissements dans sept pays de l’OCDE. Nos résultats supportent fortement la version « faible », mais de façon plus mitigée les versions « étroite » et « forte ».

Download Info
To download:

If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. Information about this may be contained in the File-Format links below. 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.

File URL: http://www.cirano.qc.ca/pdf/publication/2007s-19.pdf
File Format: application/pdf
File Function:
Download Restriction: no

Publisher Info
Paper provided by CIRANO in its series CIRANO Working Papers with number 2007s-19.

Download reference. The following formats are available: HTML (with abstract), plain text (with abstract), BibTeX, RIS (EndNote, RefMan, ProCite), ReDIF
Length:
Date of creation: 01 Sep 2007
Date of revision:
Handle: RePEc:cir:cirwor:2007s-19

Contact details of provider:
Postal: 2020 rue University, 25e �tage, Montr�al, Qu�c, H3A 2A5
Phone: (514) 985-4000
Fax: (514) 985-4039
Email:
Web page: http://www.cirano.qc.ca/
More information through EDIRC

For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its listing, contact: (Webmaster).

Related research
Keywords: Porter hypothesis; environmental policy; innovation; environmental performance; business performance.; hypothèse de Porter; politique environnementale; innovation; performance environnementale; performance financière.;

Other versions of this item:

Find related papers by JEL classification:
L21 - Industrial Organization - - Firm Objectives, Organization, and Behavior - - - Business Objectives of the Firm
M14 - Business Administration and Business Economics; Marketing; Accounting - - Business Administration - - - Corporate Culture; Social Responsibility
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
Q58 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Environmental Economics - - - Environmental Economics: Government Policy

This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

References listed on IDEAS
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.:
  1. Alpay, Ebru & Buccola, Steven & Kerkvliet, Joe, 2002. " Productivity Growth and Environmental Regulation in Mexican and U.S. Food Manufacturing," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, American Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 84(4), pages 887-901, November. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
  2. Gray, Wayne B. & Deily, Mary E., 1996. "Compliance and Enforcement: Air Pollution Regulation in the U.S. Steel Industry," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 31(1), pages 96-111, July. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
  3. Ambec, Stefan & Barla, Philippe, 2005. "Quand la réglementation environmentale profite aux pollueurs. Survol des fondements théoriques de l'hypothèse de Porter," Cahiers de recherche 0504, Université Laval - Département d'économique. [Downloadable!]
    Other versions:
  4. Burtraw, Dallas, 2000. "Innovation Under the Tradable Sulfur Dioxide Emission Permits Program in the U.S. Electricity Sector," Discussion Papers dp-00-38, Resources For the Future. [Downloadable!]
  5. Frondel, Manuel & Horbach, Jens & Rennings, Klaus, 2004. "End-of-Pipe or Cleaner Production? : An Empirical Comparison of Environmental Innovation Decisions Across OECD Countries," ZEW Discussion Papers 04-82, ZEW - Zentrum für Europäische Wirtschaftsforschung / Center for European Economic Research. [Downloadable!]
  6. Stefan Ambec & Paul Lanoie, 2007. "When and why does it pay to be green?," Cahiers de recherche 07-04, HEC Montréal, Institut d'économie appliquée. [Downloadable!]
    Other versions:
  7. Ambec, Stefan & Barla, Philippe, 2005. "Can Environmental Regulations be Good for Business? an Assessment of the Porter Hypothesis," Cahiers de recherche 0505, GREEN. [Downloadable!]
    Other versions:
  8. 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. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
    Other versions:
  9. Greaker, Mads, 2003. "Strategic environmental policy; eco-dumping or a green strategy?," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 45(3), pages 692-707, May. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
  10. Shameek Konar & Mark A. Cohen, 2001. "Does The Market Value Environmental Performance?," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 83(2), pages 281-289, May. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
  11. Ambec, Stefan & Barla, Philippe, 2002. "A theoretical foundation of the Porter hypothesis," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 75(3), pages 355-360, May. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
    Other versions:
  12. Foulon, Jerome & Lanoie, Paul & Laplante, Benoit, 2002. "Incentives for Pollution Control: Regulation or Information?," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 44(1), pages 169-187, July. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
  13. Jerry A. Hausman & Gregory Leonard & J. Douglas Zona, 1994. "Competitive Analysis with Differentiated Products," Annales d'Economie et de Statistique, ADRES, issue 34, pages 07, Avril-Jui. [Downloadable!]
  14. 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. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
  15. Brunnermeier, Smita B. & Cohen, Mark A., 2003. "Determinants of environmental innovation in US manufacturing industries," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 45(2), pages 278-293, March. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
  16. Jerry A. Hausman, 1996. "Valuation of New Goods under Perfect and Imperfect Competition," NBER Chapters, in: The Economics of New Goods, pages 207-248 National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc. [Downloadable!]
  17. Palmer, Karen & Oates, Wallace E & Portney, Paul R, 1995. "Tightening Environmental Standards: The Benefit-Cost or the No-Cost Paradigm?," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 9(4), pages 119-32, Fall. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
  18. Simpson, R. David & Bradford, Robert III, 1996. "Taxing Variable Cost: Environmental Regulation as Industrial Policy," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 30(3), pages 282-300, May. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
  19. Timothy F. Bresnahan & Robert J. Gordon, 1996. "The Economics of New Goods," NBER Books, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc, number bres96-1.
  20. Nelson, Randy A & Tietenberg, Tom & Donihue, Michael R, 1993. "Differential Environmental Regulation: Effects on Electric Utility Capital Turnover and Emissions," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 75(2), pages 368-73, May. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
  21. Aviv Nevo, 2000. "Mergers with Differentiated Products: The Case of the Ready-to-Eat Cereal Industry," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 31(3), pages 395-421, Autumn.
  22. Gray, Wayne B. & Shadbegian, Ronald J., 2003. "Plant vintage, technology, and environmental regulation," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 46(3), pages 384-402, November. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
    Other versions:
Full references

Statistics
Access and download statistics

Did you know? RePEc encourages publishers to make their bibliographic data freely available to the public.

This page was last updated on 2009-11-20.

This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Department of Economics, College of Liberal Arts and Sciences, University of Connecticut using RePEc data on a server sponsored by the Society for Economic Dynamics.