IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/eneeco/v148y2025ics0140988325004347.html

Environmental policy in vertical chains with endogenous technology portfolio

Author

Listed:
  • Basak, Debasmita
  • Chioveanu, Ioana

Abstract

We analyze the impact of environmental policy in a supply chain where an upstream monopolist uses a mixed portfolio, consisting of a polluting and a green technology. We examine and compare a no-intervention benchmark, a green subsidy, an abatement tax, a mandatory green standard, and a combined policy (mandatory standard and tax), where policy instruments maximize welfare. Compared to the benchmark, prices are higher (lower), total output is smaller (larger), green capacity is larger, polluting capacity, profits, and consumer surplus are smaller (larger), and social welfare is greater with a binding tax (with a subsidy). A subsidy leads to larger green capacity than a tax and, unless the damage is high enough, to lower polluting capacity and greater welfare. A mandatory standard is outcome equivalent to a subsidy, except for the upstream manufacturer, who strictly prefers the latter. For small enough damage, a combined policy benefits not only society, but also consumers and retailers relative to the benchmark.

Suggested Citation

  • Basak, Debasmita & Chioveanu, Ioana, 2025. "Environmental policy in vertical chains with endogenous technology portfolio," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 148(C).
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:eneeco:v:148:y:2025:i:c:s0140988325004347
    DOI: 10.1016/j.eneco.2025.108607
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0140988325004347
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.eneco.2025.108607?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

    for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Juan-Pablo Montero, 2011. "End of the line: A Note on Environmental Policy and Innovation when Governments cannot Commit," Documentos de Trabajo 394, Instituto de Economia. Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile..
    2. Montero, Juan Pablo, 2011. "A note on environmental policy and innovation when governments cannot commit," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 33(S1), pages 13-19.
    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. Herguera, Inigo & Kujal, Praveen & Petrakis, Emmanuel, 2002. "Tariffs, quality reversals and exit in vertically differentiated industries," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 58(2), pages 467-492, December.
    5. Gilbert E. Metcalf, 2009. "Designing a Carbon Tax to Reduce U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions," Review of Environmental Economics and Policy, Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 3(1), pages 63-83, Winter.
    6. Luca Lambertini, 2017. "Green Innovation and Market Power," Annual Review of Resource Economics, Annual Reviews, vol. 9(1), pages 231-252, October.
    7. D’Amato, Alessio & Dijkstra, Bouwe R., 2015. "Technology choice and environmental regulation under asymmetric information," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 41(C), pages 224-247.
    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.
    9. 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.
    10. Leahy, Dermot & Neary, J Peter, 1997. "Public Policy towards R&D in Oligopolistic Industries," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 87(4), pages 642-662, September.
    11. Suzanne Scotchmer, 2011. "Cap-and-Trade, Emissions Taxes, and Innovation," Innovation Policy and the Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 11(1), pages 29-54.
    12. Albrizio, Silvia & Kozluk, Tomasz & Zipperer, Vera, 2017. "Environmental policies and productivity growth: Evidence across industries and firms," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 81(C), pages 209-226.
    13. Martín-Herrán, Guiomar & Rubio, Santiago J., 2018. "Second-best taxation for a polluting monopoly with abatement investment," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 73(C), pages 178-193.
    14. Benchekroun, Hassan & van Long, Ngo, 1998. "Efficiency inducing taxation for polluting oligopolists," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(2), pages 325-342, November.
    15. Neary, J Peter & Leahy, Dermot, 2000. "Strategic Trade and Industrial Policy towards Dynamic Oligopolies," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 110(463), pages 484-508, April.
    16. Li, Zhimin & Pan, Yanchun & Yang, Wen & Ma, Jianhua & Zhou, Ming, 2021. "Effects of government subsidies on green technology investment and green marketing coordination of supply chain under the cap-and-trade mechanism," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 101(C).
    17. Till Requate, 2005. "Timing and Commitment of Environmental Policy, Adoption of New Technology, and Repercussions on R&D," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 31(2), pages 175-199, June.
    18. Bian, Junsong & Zhao, Xuan, 2020. "Tax or subsidy? An analysis of environmental policies in supply chains with retail competition," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 283(3), pages 901-914.
    19. Michael E. Porter & Claas van der Linde, 1995. "Toward a New Conception of the Environment-Competitiveness Relationship," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 9(4), pages 97-118, Fall.
    20. 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.
    21. Requate, Till, 2005. "Dynamic incentives by environmental policy instruments--a survey," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 54(2-3), pages 175-195, August.
    22. Luca Lambertini, 2017. "Green Innovation and Market Power," Annual Review of Economics, Annual Reviews, vol. 9(1), pages 231-252, October.
    23. Staiger, Robert W & Tabellini, Guido, 1987. "Discretionary Trade Policy and Excessive Protection," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 77(5), pages 823-837, December.
    24. repec:bla:scandj:v:97:y:1995:i:3:p:411-20 is not listed on IDEAS
    25. Laffont, Jean-Jacques & Tirole, Jean, 1996. "Pollution permits and environmental innovation," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 62(1-2), pages 127-140, October.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Feichtinger, Gustav & Lambertini, Luca & Leitmann, George & Wrzaczek, Stefan, 2022. "Managing the tragedy of commons and polluting emissions: A unified view," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 303(1), pages 487-499.
    2. Idrissa Sibailly, 2013. "On licensing and diffusion of clean technologies in oligopoly," Working Papers hal-00911453, HAL.
    3. Cainelli, Giulio & D’Amato, Alessio & Mazzanti, Massimiliano, 2020. "Resource efficient eco-innovations for a circular economy: Evidence from EU firms," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 49(1).
    4. Lidia Vidal-Meliá & Eva Camacho-Cuena & Till Requate & Israel Waichman, 2026. "Timing of Environmental Regulation and the Adoption of Low-Pollution Technologies: An Experiment," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 89(4), pages 1-29, April.
    5. Herman, Kyle S. & Xiang, Jun, 2019. "Induced innovation in clean energy technologies from foreign environmental policy stringency?," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 147(C), pages 198-207.
    6. André, F.J. & Ranocchia, C. & Rubio, S.J., 2025. "Porter Hypothesis vs. Pollution Haven Hypothesis: Can an environmental policy generate a win–win solution?," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 146(C).
    7. Ye, Fanglin & Paulson, Nicholas & Khanna, Madhu, 2022. "Are renewable energy policies effective to promote technological change? The role of induced technological risk," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 114(C).
    8. Carrión-Flores, Carmen E. & Innes, Robert, 2010. "Environmental innovation and environmental performance," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 59(1), pages 27-42, January.
    9. Ren, Shenggang & Hu, Yucai & Zheng, Jingjing & Wang, Yangjie, 2020. "Emissions trading and firm innovation: Evidence from a natural experiment in China," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 155(C).
    10. 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.
    11. He, Yiqing & Ding, Xin & Yang, Chuchu, 2021. "Do environmental regulations and financial constraints stimulate corporate technological innovation? Evidence from China," Journal of Asian Economics, Elsevier, vol. 72(C).
    12. Aalbers, Rob & Shestalova, Victoria & Kocsis, Viktória, 2013. "Innovation policy for directing technical change in the power sector," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 63(C), pages 1240-1250.
    13. He, Wenjian & Cheng, Yu & Lin, Ying & Zhang, Hongxiao, 2022. "Microeconomic effects of designating National Forest Cities: Evidence from China's publicly traded manufacturing companies," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 136(C).
    14. Tomoda, Yasunobu & Ouchida, Yasunori, 2023. "Endogenous bifurcation into environmental CSR and non-environmental CSR firms by activist shareholders," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 122(C).
    15. Golombek, Rolf & Greaker, Mads & Hoel, Michael, 2020. "Should environmental R&D be prioritized?," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 60(C).
    16. Alessandra Colombelli & Jackie Krafft & Francesco Quatraro, 2021. "Firms’ growth, green gazelles and eco-innovation: evidence from a sample of European firms," Small Business Economics, Springer, vol. 56(4), pages 1721-1738, April.
    17. Galeotti, Marzio & Salini, Silvia & Verdolini, Elena, 2020. "Measuring environmental policy stringency: Approaches, validity, and impact on environmental innovation and energy efficiency," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 136(C).
    18. Naoto Aoyama & Emilson Caputo Delfino Silva, 2022. "Endogenous Abatement Technology Agreements under Environmental Regulation," Games, MDPI, vol. 13(2), pages 1-30, April.
    19. Ahlvik, Lassi & van den Bijgaart, Inge, 2024. "Screening green innovation through carbon pricing," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 124(C).
    20. Zhang, Dan & Zheng, Mingbo & Feng, Gen-Fu & Chang, Chun-Ping, 2022. "Does an environmental policy bring to green innovation in renewable energy?," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 195(C), pages 1113-1124.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    JEL classification:

    • L1 - Industrial Organization - - Market Structure, Firm Strategy, and Market Performance
    • D4 - Microeconomics - - Market Structure, Pricing, and Design
    • Q4 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Energy
    • Q5 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Environmental Economics

    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:eee:eneeco:v:148:y:2025:i:c:s0140988325004347. 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: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/eneco .

    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.