IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/
MyIDEAS: Login to save this article or follow this journal

Clean and productive? Empirical evidence from the German manufacturing industry

  • Böhringer, Christoph
  • Moslener, Ulf
  • Oberndorfer, Ulrich
  • Ziegler, Andreas

In view of the controversial policy debate on “green” growth and corresponding stimulus packages we empirically investigate the production effects of environmental investment as well as of environmental and energy expenditures. Using a panel dataset of German manufacturing sectors our econometric analysis identifies a positive impact of environmental investment on production growth. In contrast, our estimation results cannot support the hypothesis of positive production impacts induced by environmental or energy expenditures. We thus conclude that environmental regulation should in particular stimulate environmental investment in order to be compatible with the pursuit of production growth.

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.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0048733311001892
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 Research Policy.

Volume (Year): 41 (2012)
Issue (Month): 2 ()
Pages: 442-451

as
in new window

Handle: RePEc:eee:respol:v:41:y:2012:i:2:p:442-451
Contact details of provider: Web page: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/respol

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. Mazzanti, Massimiliano & Zoboli, Roberto, 2009. "Environmental efficiency and labour productivity: Trade-off or joint dynamics? A theoretical investigation and empirical evidence from Italy using NAMEA," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(4), pages 1182-1194, February.
  2. Kjetil Telle, 2006. "“It Pays to be Green” – A Premature Conclusion?," Environmental & Resource Economics, European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 35(3), pages 195-220, November.
  3. Carol Corrado & Paul Lengermann & Eric J. Bartelsman & J. Joseph Beaulieu, 2007. "Sectoral productivity in the United States: recent developments and the role of IT," Finance and Economics Discussion Series 2007-24, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (U.S.).
  4. 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.
  5. Karen Palmer & Wallace E. Oates & Paul R. Portney, 1995. "Tightening Environmental Standards: The Benefit-Cost or the No-Cost Paradigm?," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 9(4), pages 119-132, Fall.
  6. Daniel Aaronson & Daniel Sullivan, 2001. "Growth in worker quality," Economic Perspectives, Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago, issue Q IV, pages 53-74.
  7. Dominique Guellec & Bruno van Pottelsberghe de la Potterie, 2001. "R&D and Productivity Growth: Panel Data Analysis of 16 OECD Countries," OECD Economic Studies, OECD Publishing, vol. 2001(2), pages 103-126.
  8. Ziegler, Andreas & Seijas Nogareda, Jazmin, 2009. "Environmental management systems and technological environmental innovations: Exploring the causal relationship," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(5), pages 885-893, June.
  9. 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.
  10. Greg Filbeck & Raymond Gorman, 2004. "The Relationship between the Environmental and Financial Performance of Public Utilities," Environmental & Resource Economics, European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 29(2), pages 137-157, October.
  11. Josh Ederington & Jenny Minier, 2000. "Is Environmental Policy a Secondary Trade Barrier? An Empirical Analysis," Econometric Society World Congress 2000 Contributed Papers 1507, Econometric Society.
  12. Arellano, Manuel & Bond, Stephen, 1991. "Some Tests of Specification for Panel Data: Monte Carlo Evidence and an Application to Employment Equations," Review of Economic Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 58(2), pages 277-97, April.
  13. Paul Lanoie & Jérémy Laurent-Lucchetti & Nick Johnstone & Stefan Ambec, 2007. "Environmental Policy, Innovation and Performance : New Insights on the Porter Hypothesis," Cahiers de recherche 07-06, HEC Montréal, Institut d'économie appliquée.
  14. Andreas Ziegler & Michael Schröder & Klaus Rennings, 2007. "The effect of environmental and social performance on the stock performance of european corporations," Environmental & Resource Economics, European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 37(4), pages 661-680, August.
  15. Horbach, Jens, 2008. "Determinants of environmental innovation--New evidence from German panel data sources," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(1), pages 163-173, February.
  16. Dirk Pilat, 2004. "The ICT Productivity Paradox: Insights from Micro Data," OECD Economic Studies, OECD Publishing, vol. 2004(1), pages 37-65.
  17. Wayne B. Gray & Ronald J. Shadbegian, 2001. "Plant Vintage, Technology, and Environmental Regulation," NCEE Working Paper Series 200104, National Center for Environmental Economics, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, revised Nov 2001.
  18. Wagner, Marcus, 2007. "On the relationship between environmental management, environmental innovation and patenting: Evidence from German manufacturing firms," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(10), pages 1587-1602, December.
  19. Kazuhiko Hayakawa, 2005. "Small Sample Bias Propreties of the System GMM Estimator in Dynamic Panel Data Models," Hi-Stat Discussion Paper Series d05-82, Institute of Economic Research, Hitotsubashi University.
  20. Adam B. Jaffe & Karen Palmer, 1996. "Environmental Regulation and Innovation: A Panel Data Study," NBER Working Papers 5545, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
  21. Anna Alberini & Kathleen Segerson, 2002. "Assessing Voluntary Programs to Improve Environmental Quality," Environmental & Resource Economics, European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 22(1), pages 157-184, June.
  22. 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.
  23. 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.
  24. Elsayed, Khaled & Paton, David, 2005. "The impact of environmental performance on firm performance: static and dynamic panel data evidence," Structural Change and Economic Dynamics, Elsevier, vol. 16(3), pages 395-412, September.
  25. Shadbegian, Ronald J. & Gray, Wayne B., 2005. "Pollution abatement expenditures and plant-level productivity: A production function approach," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 54(2-3), pages 196-208, August.
  26. Nickell, Stephen J, 1981. "Biases in Dynamic Models with Fixed Effects," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 49(6), pages 1417-26, November.
  27. Esther Blanco & Javier Rey-Maquieira & Javier Lozano, 2009. "The Economic Impacts Of Voluntary Environmental Performance Of Firms: A Critical Review," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 23(3), pages 462-502, 07.
  28. Magnus Blomström & Ari Kokko & Mario Zejan, 1994. "Host country competition, labor skills, and technology transfer by multinationals," Review of World Economics (Weltwirtschaftliches Archiv), Springer, vol. 130(3), pages 521-533, September.
  29. Cole, Matthew A. & Elliott, Robert J.R. & Shimamoto, Kenichi, 2005. "Industrial characteristics, environmental regulations and air pollution: an analysis of the UK manufacturing sector," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 50(1), pages 121-143, July.
  30. Bruno, Giovanni S.F., 2005. "Approximating the bias of the LSDV estimator for dynamic unbalanced panel data models," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 87(3), pages 361-366, June.
  31. Lawrence Goulder, 1995. "Environmental taxation and the double dividend: A reader's guide," International Tax and Public Finance, Springer, vol. 2(2), pages 157-183, August.
  32. Rehfeld, Katharina-Maria & Rennings, Klaus & Ziegler, Andreas, 2004. "Integrated Product Policy and Environmental Product Innovations: An Empirical Analysis," ZEW Discussion Papers 04-71, ZEW - Zentrum für Europäische Wirtschaftsforschung / Center for European Economic Research.
  33. 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.
  34. 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.
  35. Oecd, 2010. "Linkages between Environmental Policy and Competitiveness," OECD Environment Working Papers 13, OECD Publishing.
  36. Anderson, T. W. & Hsiao, Cheng, 1982. "Formulation and estimation of dynamic models using panel data," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 18(1), pages 47-82, January.
  37. 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.
  38. Nalebuff, Barry J & Stiglitz, Joseph E, 1983. "Information, Competition, and Markets," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 73(2), pages 278-83, May.
  39. Steve Bond, 2002. "Dynamic panel data models: a guide to microdata methods and practice," CeMMAP working papers CWP09/02, Centre for Microdata Methods and Practice, Institute for Fiscal Studies.
  40. Theo S. Eicher & Oliver Roehn, 2007. "Sources of the German Productivity Demise: Tracing the Effects of Industry-Level Information and Communication Technology Investment," German Economic Review, Verein für Socialpolitik, vol. 8, pages 211-236, 05.
  41. Gray, Wayne B, 1987. "The Cost of Regulation: OSHA, EPA and the Productivity Slowdown," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 77(5), pages 998-1006, December.
  42. David Popp, 2003. "Pollution control innovations and the Clean Air Act of 1990," Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 22(4), pages 641-660.
  43. Adam B. Jaffe et al., 1995. "Environmental Regulation and the Competitiveness of U.S. Manufacturing: What Does the Evidence Tell Us?," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 33(1), pages 132-163, March.
  44. Dale W. Jorgenson, 2001. "Information Technology and the U.S. Economy," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 91(1), pages 1-32, March.
  45. Hamamoto, Mitsutsugu, 2006. "Environmental regulation and the productivity of Japanese manufacturing industries," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 28(4), pages 299-312, November.
  46. Lynne G. Zucker & Michael R. Darby & Maximo Torero, 1997. "Labor Mobility from Academe to Commerce," NBER Working Papers 6050, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
  47. Popp, David, 2006. "International innovation and diffusion of air pollution control technologies: the effects of NOX and SO2 regulation in the US, Japan, and Germany," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 51(1), pages 46-71, January.
  48. Arellano, Manuel, 2003. "Panel Data Econometrics," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, number 9780199245291, March.
  49. Cole, Matthew A. & Elliott, Robert J.R. & Wu, Shanshan, 2008. "Industrial activity and the environment in China: An industry-level analysis," China Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 19(3), pages 393-408, September.
  50. Kiviet, Jan F., 1995. "On bias, inconsistency, and efficiency of various estimators in dynamic panel data models," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 68(1), pages 53-78, July.
  51. Marcus Wagner, 2004. "The Porter Hypothesis Revisited: A Literature Review of Theoretical Models and Empirical Tests," Public Economics 0407014, EconWPA.
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:respol:v:41:y:2012:i:2:p:442-451. 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.