Advanced Search
MyIDEAS: Login

Revisiting the Porter Hypothesis: An Empirical Analysis of Green Innovation for the Netherlands

Contents:

Author Info

  • George van Leeuwen
  • Pierre Mohnen

    ()

Abstract

Almost all empirical research that has attempted to assess the validity of the Porter Hypothesis has started from reduced-form models, e.g. by using single-equation models for estimating the contribution of environmental regulation (ER) to productivity. This paper addresses the Porter Hypothesis within a structural approach that allows us to test what is known in the literature as the “weak” and the “strong” version of the Porter hypothesis. Our “Green Innovation” model includes three types of eco investments and non-eco R&D to explain differences in the incidence of innovation. Besides product and process innovations we recognize eco-innovation as a separate type of innovation output. We explicitly model the potential synergies of introducing the three types of innovations simultaneously and their synergy in affecting total factor productivity (TFP) performance. Using a comprehensive panel of firm-level data built from four surveys we aim to estimate the relative importance of energy price incentives as a market based type of ER and the direct effect of environmental regulation on eco investment and firms’ decisions regarding the introduction of several types of innovations. The results of our analysis show a strong corroboration of the weak version of the Porter hypothesis but not of the strong version of the PH, in this case on TFP performance. Presque toutes les études empiriques qui se sont penchées sur l’hypothèse de Porter ont utilisé un modèle à forme réduite, en d’autres termes un modèle qui régresse la productivité sur la réglementation environnementale. Notre étude utilise un modèle à forme structurelle qui permet de tester les versions faible et forte de l’hypothèse de Porter. Notre modèle d’innovation verte comporte trois types d’investissement environnementaux en plus de la R-D non-environnementale, qui ensemble expliquent l’occurrence d’innovations, qui sont au nombre de trois : innovation de produit, de procédé et éco-innovation. Nous testons la présence de synergie dans l’introduction de ces trois types d’innovation et dans leurs effets sur la productivité totale des facteurs. À l’aide de données de firmes en panel provenant de quatre enquêtes différentes, nous estimons l’importance des prix de l’énergie et des réglementations environnementales sur les investissements verts et les différents types d’innovation. Nos résultats corroborant la version faible mais pas la version forte de l’hypothèse de Porter.

Download Info

If 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.
File URL: http://www.cirano.qc.ca/pdf/publication/2013s-02.pdf
Download Restriction: no

Bibliographic Info

Paper provided by CIRANO in its series CIRANO Working Papers with number 2013s-02.

as in new window
Length:
Date of creation: 01 Jan 2013
Date of revision:
Handle: RePEc:cir:cirwor:2013s-02

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

Related research

Keywords: Porter Hypothesis; green innovation; environmental regulation; innovation complementarities; productivity;

Other versions of this item:

Find related papers by JEL classification:

This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

References

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.:
as in new window
  1. Christos Constantatos & Markus Herrmann, 2011. "Market Inertia and the Introduction of Green Products: Can Strategic Effects Justify the Porter Hypothesis?," Environmental & Resource Economics, European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 50(2), pages 267-284, October.
  2. Giovanni Marin, 2012. "Do Eco-Innovations Harm Productivity Growth through Crowding Out? Results of an Extended CDM Model for Italy," Working Papers 3/2012, IMT Institute for Advanced Studies Lucca, revised May 2012.
  3. Jaffe, Adam B. & Newell, Richard G. & Stavins, Robert N., 2003. "Chapter 11 Technological change and the environment," Handbook of Environmental Economics, in: K. G. Mäler & J. R. Vincent (ed.), Handbook of Environmental Economics, edition 1, volume 1, chapter 11, pages 461-516 Elsevier.
  4. Kretschmer, Tobias & Miravete, Eugenio J & Pernías, Jose C, 2011. "Competitive Pressure and the Adoption of Complementary Innovations," CEPR Discussion Papers 8289, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
  5. Elie Tamer, 2003. "Incomplete Simultaneous Discrete Response Model with Multiple Equilibria," Review of Economic Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 70(1), pages 147-165, January.
  6. Amemiya, Takeshi, 1984. "Tobit models: A survey," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 24(1-2), pages 3-61.
  7. Acemoglu, Daron & Aghion, Philippe & Bursztyn, Leonardo & Hemous, David, 2010. "The Environment and Directed Technical Change," Seminar Papers 762, Stockholm University, Institute for International Economic Studies.
  8. Mohnen, Pierre & Röller, Lars-Hendrik, 2001. "Complementarities in Innovation Policy," CEPR Discussion Papers 2712, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
  9. Ambec, Stefan & Barla, Philippe, 2005. "Can Environmental Regulations be Good for Business? an Assessment of the Porter Hypothesis," Cahiers de recherche 0505, Université Laval - Département d'économique.
  10. Lorenzo Cappellari & Stephen P. Jenkins, 2006. "Calculation of multivariate normal probabilities by simulation, with applications to maximum simulated likelihood estimation," Stata Journal, StataCorp LP, vol. 6(2), pages 156-189, June.
  11. Paul Lanoie & Jérémy Laurent‐Lucchetti & Nick Johnstone & Stefan Ambec, 2011. "Environmental Policy, Innovation and Performance: New Insights on the Porter Hypothesis," Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 20(3), pages 803-842, 09.
  12. repec:fth:inseep:9833 is not listed on IDEAS
  13. Lorenzo Cappellari & Stephen P. Jenkins, 2003. "Multivariate probit regression using simulated maximum likelihood," United Kingdom Stata Users' Group Meetings 2003 10, Stata Users Group.
  14. Elie Tamer, 2003. "Incomplete Simultaneous Discrete Response Model with Multiple Equilibria," Review of Economic Studies, Oxford University Press, vol. 70(1), pages 147-165.
  15. Adam B. Jaffe & Karen Palmer, 1996. "Environmental Regulation and Innovation: A Panel Data Study," NBER Working Papers 5545, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
  16. Arthur Lewbel, 1997. "Coherence and Completeness of Structural Models Containing a Dummy Endogenous Variable," Boston College Working Papers in Economics 456, Boston College Department of Economics, revised 04 Sep 2006.
  17. Pierre Desrochers, 2008. "Did the Invisible Hand Need a Regulatory Glove to Develop a Green Thumb? Some Historical Perspective on Market Incentives, Win-Win Innovations and the Porter Hypothesis," Environmental & Resource Economics, European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 41(4), pages 519-539, December.
  18. Michael Polder & George van Leeuwen & Pierre Mohnen & Wladimir Raymond, 2010. "Product, Process and Organizational Innovation: Drivers, Complementarity and Productivity Effects," DRUID Working Papers 10-24, DRUID, Copenhagen Business School, Department of Industrial Economics and Strategy/Aalborg University, Department of Business Studies.
  19. Ziesemer, Thomas & Kriechel, Ben, 2007. "The Environmental Porter Hypothesis: Theory, Evidence and a Model of Timing of Adoption," MERIT Working Papers 024, United Nations University - Maastricht Economic and Social Research Institute on Innovation and Technology (MERIT).
  20. Adam Jaffe & Richard Newell & Robert Stavins, 2002. "Environmental Policy and Technological Change," Environmental & Resource Economics, European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 22(1), pages 41-70, June.
  21. 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.
  22. Cerin, Pontus, 2006. "Bringing economic opportunity into line with environmental influence: A discussion on the Coase theorem and the Porter and van der Linde hypothesis," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 56(2), pages 209-225, February.
  23. Nicholas Z. Muller & Robert Mendelsohn & William Nordhaus, 2011. "Environmental Accounting for Pollution in the United States Economy," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 101(5), pages 1649-75, August.
  24. Rennings, Klaus & Rexhäuser, Sascha, 2010. "Long-term impacts of environmental policy and eco-innovative activities of firms," ZEW Discussion Papers 10-074, ZEW - Zentrum für Europäische Wirtschaftsforschung / Center for European Economic Research.
  25. Stefan Ambec & Philippe Barla, 2001. "A Theoretical Foundation of the Porter Hypothesis," CSEF Working Papers 54, Centre for Studies in Economics and Finance (CSEF), University of Naples, Italy.
  26. Milgrom, Paul & Roberts, John, 1995. "Complementarities and fit strategy, structure, and organizational change in manufacturing," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 19(2-3), pages 179-208, April.
  27. Rexhäuser, Sascha & Rammer, Christian, 2011. "Unmasking the Porter hypothesis: Environmental innovations and firm-profitability," ZEW Discussion Papers 11-036, ZEW - Zentrum für Europäische Wirtschaftsforschung / Center for European Economic Research.
  28. Bruce Domazlicky & William Weber, 2004. "Does Environmental Protection Lead to Slower Productivity Growth in the Chemical Industry?," Environmental & Resource Economics, European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 28(3), pages 301-324, July.
  29. Kodde, David A & Palm, Franz C, 1986. "Wald Criteria for Jointly Testing Equality and Inequality Restriction s," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 54(5), pages 1243-48, September.
  30. Bruno Crepon & Emmanuel Duguet & Jacques Mairessec, 1998. "Research, Innovation And Productivi[Ty: An Econometric Analysis At The Firm Level," Economics of Innovation and New Technology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 7(2), pages 115-158.
  31. Joshua S. Gans, 2012. "Innovation and Climate Change Policy," American Economic Journal: Economic Policy, American Economic Association, vol. 4(4), pages 125-45, November.
  32. Marcus Wagner, 2004. "The Porter Hypothesis Revisited: A Literature Review of Theoretical Models and Empirical Tests," Public Economics 0407014, EconWPA.
  33. Crepon, B. & Duguet, E. & Mairesse, J., 1998. "Research Investment, Innovation and Productivity: An Econometric Analysis at the Firm Level," Papiers d'Economie Mathématique et Applications 98.15, Université Panthéon-Sorbonne (Paris 1).
  34. Heckman, James J, 1978. "Dummy Endogenous Variables in a Simultaneous Equation System," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 46(4), pages 931-59, July.
  35. Rennings, Klaus & Rammer, Christian, 2010. "The impact of regulation-driven environmental innovation on innovation success and firm performance," ZEW Discussion Papers 10-065, ZEW - Zentrum für Europäische Wirtschaftsforschung / Center for European Economic Research.
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 in new window

Cited by:
  1. Massimiliano Mazzanti & Susanna Mancinelli & Marianna Gilli, 2014. "Innovation Complementarity and Environmental Productivity Effects: Reality or Delusion? Evidence from the EU," Working Papers 2014043, University of Ferrara, Department of Economics.
  2. Marius Ley & Tobias Stucki & Martin Wörter, 2013. "The Impact of Energy Prices on Green Innovation," KOF Working papers 13-340, KOF Swiss Economic Institute, ETH Zurich.

Lists

This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

Statistics

Access and download statistics

Corrections

When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:cir:cirwor:2013s-02. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Webmaster).

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 references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link 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 profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.