IDEAS home Printed from
MyIDEAS: Login to save this article or follow this journal

Is energy intensity important for the productivity growth of EET adopters?

  • Kounetas, Konstantinos
  • Mourtos, Ioannis
  • Tsekouras, Konstantinos

Energy Efficient Technologies (EET) have attracted strong interest because of their role in reducing environmental damage. Their adoption, however, remains rather low, while their impact on productivity is substantial and differentiating with respect to technological characteristics. Energy intensity, being such an obvious characteristic, could be employed to classify EET adopters thus giving rise to two heterogeneous technologies (i.e. those corresponding to firms of low and high energy consumption). Hence, this paper examines the impact of energy intensity on the productivity growth of firms adopting EET in varying time intervals through a metafrontier-based framework, while also decomposing that impact in terms of technical, efficiency and scale-efficiency changes. The analysis is complemented by examining the role of firm-specific characteristics on the productivity growth through linear regression.

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:
Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.

Article provided by Elsevier in its journal Energy Economics.

Volume (Year): 34 (2012)
Issue (Month): 4 ()
Pages: 930-941

in new window

Handle: RePEc:eee:eneeco:v:34:y:2012:i:4:p:930-941
Contact details of provider: Web page:

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. Dosi, Giovanni, 1993. "Technological paradigms and technological trajectories : A suggested interpretation of the determinants and directions of technical change," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 22(2), pages 102-103, April.
  2. Rosenberg, Nathan, 1990. "Why do firms do basic research (with their own money)?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 19(2), pages 165-174, April.
  3. Jaffe, Adam B. & Stavins, Robert N., 1994. "The energy paradox and the diffusion of conservation technology," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 16(2), pages 91-122, May.
  4. Fariborz Damanpour, 1996. "Organizational Complexity and Innovation: Developing and Testing Multiple Contingency Models," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 42(5), pages 693-716, May.
  5. Henri L.F.M. de Groot & Erik T. Verhoef & Peter Nijkamp, 1999. "Energy Saving by Firms: Decision-Making, Barriers and Policies," Tinbergen Institute Discussion Papers 99-031/3, Tinbergen Institute.
  6. Klepper, Steven, 1996. "Entry, Exit, Growth, and Innovation over the Product Life Cycle," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 86(3), pages 562-83, June.
  7. Timothy F. Bresnahan & Manuel Trajtenberg, 1992. "General Purpose Technologies "Engines of Growth?"," NBER Working Papers 4148, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
  8. Christopher O’Donnell & D. Rao & George Battese, 2008. "Metafrontier frameworks for the study of firm-level efficiencies and technology ratios," Empirical Economics, Springer, vol. 34(2), pages 231-255, March.
  9. Loof, Hans & Heshmati, Almas, 2002. "Knowledge capital and performance heterogeneity: : A firm-level innovation study," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 76(1), pages 61-85, March.
  10. Jovanovic, Boyan & Rousseau, Peter L., 2005. "General Purpose Technologies," Handbook of Economic Growth, in: Philippe Aghion & Steven Durlauf (ed.), Handbook of Economic Growth, edition 1, volume 1, chapter 18, pages 1181-1224 Elsevier.
  11. Zhang, Jianling & Wang, Guoshun, 2008. "Energy saving technologies and productive efficiency in the Chinese iron and steel sector," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 33(4), pages 525-537.
  12. Laura Power, 1998. "The Missing Link: Technology, Investment, And Productivity," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 80(2), pages 300-313, May.
  13. Jorgenson, Dale W, 1984. "The Role of Energy in Productivity Growth," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 74(2), pages 26-30, May.
  14. 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.
  15. Caves, Douglas W & Christensen, Laurits R & Diewert, W Erwin, 1982. "The Economic Theory of Index Numbers and the Measurement of Input, Output, and Productivity," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 50(6), pages 1393-1414, November.
  16. Dimitris Skuras & Kostas Tsekouras & Efthalia Dimara & Dimitris Tzelepis, 2006. "The Effects of Regional Capital Subsidies on Productivity Growth: A Case Study of the Greek Food and Beverage Manufacturing Industry," Journal of Regional Science, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 46(2), pages 355-381.
  17. Dale W. Jorgenson, 1984. "The Role of Energy in Productivity Growth," The Energy Journal, International Association for Energy Economics, vol. 0(Number 3), pages 11-26.
  18. Boyd, Gale A. & Pang, Joseph X., 2000. "Estimating the linkage between energy efficiency and productivity," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 28(5), pages 289-296, May.
  19. Teece, David J., 1996. "Firm organization, industrial structure, and technological innovation," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 31(2), pages 193-224, November.
  20. Rohdin, P. & Thollander, P., 2006. "Barriers to and driving forces for energy efficiency in the non-energy intensive manufacturing industry in Sweden," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 31(12), pages 1836-1844.
  21. Geels, Frank W., 2004. "From sectoral systems of innovation to socio-technical systems: Insights about dynamics and change from sociology and institutional theory," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 33(6-7), pages 897-920, September.
  22. Bert Balk, 2001. "Scale Efficiency and Productivity Change," Journal of Productivity Analysis, Springer, vol. 15(3), pages 159-183, May.
  23. Kounetas, Kostas & Tsekouras, Kostas, 2008. "The energy efficiency paradox revisited through a partial observability approach," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 30(5), pages 2517-2536, September.
  24. Ghemawat, Pankaj & Caves, Richard E, 1986. "Capital Commitment and Profitability: An Empirical Investigation," Oxford Economic Papers, Oxford University Press, vol. 38(0), pages 94-110, Suppl. No.
  25. Khanna, Madhu & Damon, Lisa A., 1999. "EPA's Voluntary 33/50 Program: Impact on Toxic Releases and Economic Performance of Firms," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 37(1), pages 1-25, January.
  26. Foray, Dominique, 1997. "The dynamic implications of increasing returns: Technological change and path dependent inefficiency," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 15(6), pages 733-752, October.
  27. Worrell, Ernst & Laitner, John A & Ruth, Michael & Finman, Hodayah, 2003. "Productivity benefits of industrial energy efficiency measures," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 28(11), pages 1081-1098.
  28. Ng, Charles K & Seabright, Paul, 2001. "Competition, Privatisation and Productive Efficiency: Evidence from the Airline Industry," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 111(473), pages 591-619, July.
  29. Robert H Mcguckin & Bradford J Jensen, 1996. "Firm Performance And Evolution Empirical Regularities In The U.S. Microdata," Working Papers 96-10, Center for Economic Studies, U.S. Census Bureau.
  30. DeCanio, Stephen J, 1998. "The efficiency paradox: bureaucratic and organizational barriers to profitable energy-saving investments," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 26(5), pages 441-454, April.
  31. Geroski, Paul A, 1999. "Models of Technology Diffusion," CEPR Discussion Papers 2146, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
  32. Gale Boyd & George Tolley & Joseph Pang, 2002. "Plant Level Productivity, Efficiency, and Environmental Performance of the Container Glass Industry," Environmental & Resource Economics, European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 23(1), pages 29-43, September.
  33. Kverndokk, Snorre & Rosendahl, Knut Einar, 2007. "Climate policies and learning by doing: Impacts and timing of technology subsidies," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 29(1), pages 58-82, January.
Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

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

When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:eneeco:v:34:y:2012:i:4:p:930-941. 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: (Zhang, Lei)

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.

This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis using RePEc data.