IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/iea/carech/1102.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Promoting Pollution Prevention in Small Businesses: Costs and Benefits of the “Enviroclub” Initiative

Author

Listed:

Abstract

The Enviroclub initiative was developed by three federal government agencies—Canada Economic Development for Quebec Regions, Environment Canada and the National Research Council Canada—and launched in 2001 to assist small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) in improving their profitability and competitiveness through enhanced environmental performance. An Enviroclub consists of a group of 10-15 SMEs involved in training sessions on environmental management and carrying out at least one profitable in-plant pollution prevention project. The objective of this article is to provide a cost benefit analysis (CBA) of this original initiative in order to inform policy makers as to the social desirability of such programs. One of the main social benefits of this initiative is to reduce emissions of various pollutants, so that one of our largest challenges is to place a value on these environmental improvements. To do so, we use the “environmental value transfer” method to obtain values from previous relevant studies. We conduct our CBA at three different levels: we consider the costs and benefits first for the whole of society, then from the participating firms’ point of view and, finally, from the governments’ perspective. We conclude that, whichever perspective we choose, The Enviroclub initiative has been highly profitable.

Suggested Citation

  • Paul Lanoie & Alexandra Rochon-Fabien, 2011. "Promoting Pollution Prevention in Small Businesses: Costs and Benefits of the “Enviroclub” Initiative," Cahiers de recherche 11-02, HEC Montréal, Institut d'économie appliquée.
  • Handle: RePEc:iea:carech:1102
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.hec.ca/iea/cahiers/2011/iea_1102_planoie.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Muller, Nicholas Z. & Mendelsohn, Robert, 2007. "Measuring the damages of air pollution in the United States," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 54(1), pages 1-14, July.
    2. Georges Dionne & Paul Lanoie, 2004. "Public Choice about the Value of a Statistical Life for Cost-Benefit Analyses: The Case of Road Safety," Journal of Transport Economics and Policy, University of Bath, vol. 38(2), pages 247-274, May.
    3. 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, September.
    4. repec:reg:rpubli:140 is not listed on IDEAS
    5. Spash, Clive L. & Vatn, Arild, 2006. "Transferring environmental value estimates: Issues and alternatives," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 60(2), pages 379-388, December.
    6. Dachraoui, Kaïs Harchaoui, Tarek, 2004. "Water Use, Shadow Prices and the Canadian Business Sector Productivity Performance," Economic Analysis (EA) Research Paper Series 2004026e, Statistics Canada, Analytical Studies Branch.
    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. Paramonova, Svetlana & Thollander, Patrik, 2016. "Energy-efficiency networks for SMEs: Learning from the Swedish experience," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 65(C), pages 295-307.
    2. 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.

    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. Vitaliy Roud & Thomas Wolfgang Thurner, 2018. "The Influence of State‐Ownership on Eco‐Innovations in Russian Manufacturing Firms," Journal of Industrial Ecology, Yale University, vol. 22(5), pages 1213-1227, October.
    2. LaPlue, Lawrence D., 2022. "Environmental consequences of natural gas wellhead pricing deregulation," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 116(C).
    3. Jeßberger Christoph & Sindram Maximilian & Zimmer Markus, 2011. "Global Warming Induced Water-Cycle Changes and Industrial Production – A Scenario Analysis for the Upper Danube River Basin," Journal of Economics and Statistics (Jahrbuecher fuer Nationaloekonomie und Statistik), De Gruyter, vol. 231(3), pages 415-439, June.
    4. Lei Ding & Xuejuan Fang, 2022. "Spatial–temporal distribution of air-pollution-intensive industries and its social-economic driving mechanism in Zhejiang Province, China: a framework of spatial econometric analysis," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 24(2), pages 1681-1712, February.
    5. Zhangsheng Liu & Liuqingqing Yang & Liqin Fan, 2021. "Induced Effect of Environmental Regulation on Green Innovation: Evidence from the Increasing-Block Pricing Scheme," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(5), pages 1-15, March.
    6. Liu, Menghe & Li, Yuxiao, 2022. "Environmental regulation and green innovation: Evidence from China's carbon emissions trading policy," Finance Research Letters, Elsevier, vol. 48(C).
    7. Spash, Clive L., 2017. "The Need for and Meaning of Social Ecological Economics," SRE-Discussion Papers 2017/02, WU Vienna University of Economics and Business.
    8. Kevin Boyle & Sapna Kaul & Ali Hashemi & Xiaoshu Li, 2015. "Applicability of benefit transfers for evaluation of homeland security counterterrorism measures," Chapters, in: Carol Mansfield & V. K. Smith (ed.), Benefit–Cost Analyses for Security Policies, chapter 10, pages 225-253, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    9. Defrancesco, Edi & Gatto, Paola & Rosato, Paolo, 2014. "A ‘component-based’ approach to discounting for natural resource damage assessment," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 99(C), pages 1-9.
    10. Martin Woerter & Tobias Stucki, 2016. "Intra-Firm Diffusion of Green Energy Technologies and the Choice of Policy Instruments," KOF Working papers 16-401, KOF Swiss Economic Institute, ETH Zurich.
    11. Jintao Zhang & Zhen Yang & Li Meng & Lu Han, 2022. "Environmental regulations and enterprises innovation performance: the role of R&D investments and political connections," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 24(3), pages 4088-4109, March.
    12. Michael Peneder & Spyros Arvanitis & Christian Rammer & Tobias Stucki & Martin Wörter, 2022. "Policy instruments and self-reported impacts of the adoption of energy saving technologies in the DACH region," Empirica, Springer;Austrian Institute for Economic Research;Austrian Economic Association, vol. 49(2), pages 369-404, May.
    13. Nelson, Kelly P. & Parton, Lee C. & Brown, Zachary S., 2022. "Biofuels policy and innovation impacts: Evidence from biofuels and agricultural patent indicators," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 162(C).
    14. Yanli Ji & Jie Xue & Kaiyang Zhong, 2022. "Does Environmental Regulation Promote Industrial Green Technology Progress? Empirical Evidence from China with a Heterogeneity Analysis," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(1), pages 1-23, January.
    15. Huiban, Jean-Pierre & Mastromarco, Camille & Musolesi, Antonio & Simioni, Michel, 2016. "The impact of pollution abatement investments on production technology: new insights from frontier analysis," Working Papers MOISA 235162, Institut National de la recherché Agronomique (INRA), UMR MOISA : Marchés, Organisations, Institutions et Stratégies d'Acteurs : CIHEAM-IAMM, CIRAD, INRA, Montpellier SupAgro, Montpellier, France.
    16. Raymond Markey & Joseph McIvor & Martin O’Brien & Chris F Wright, 2021. "Triggering business responses to climate policy in Australia," Australian Journal of Management, Australian School of Business, vol. 46(2), pages 248-271, May.
    17. Giovanni Marin & Francesca Lotti, 2017. "Productivity effects of eco-innovations using data on eco-patents," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press and the Associazione ICC, vol. 26(1), pages 125-148.
    18. Claudia Ranocchia & Luca Lambertini, 2021. "Porter Hypothesis vs Pollution Haven Hypothesis: Can There Be Environmental Policies Getting Two Eggs in One Basket?," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 78(1), pages 177-199, January.
    19. Lueken, Roger & Klima, Kelly & Griffin, W. Michael & Apt, Jay, 2016. "The climate and health effects of a USA switch from coal to gas electricity generation," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 109(C), pages 1160-1166.
    20. Teemu Makkonen & Sari Repka, 2016. "The innovation inducement impact of environmental regulations on maritime transport: a literature review," International Journal of Innovation and Sustainable Development, Inderscience Enterprises Ltd, vol. 10(1), pages 69-86.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    cost-benefit analysis; SMEs; environment training; environmental performance;
    All these keywords.

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:iea:carech:1102. 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: Patricia Power (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/iehecca.html .

    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.