IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/ids/ijisde/v10y2016i1p69-86.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The innovation inducement impact of environmental regulations on maritime transport: a literature review

Author

Listed:
  • Teemu Makkonen
  • Sari Repka

Abstract

Maritime transport is facing wide-ranking challenges due to stricter environmental regulations. It has been positioned that these stricter environmental regulations will significantly hamper the competitiveness of the shipping industry and other export/import oriented industries. However, contrasting views, arguing that environmental regulations will, in fact, enhance firms' competitiveness by inducing innovation, have also been voiced. Here, this issue is examined through a literature review on the innovation inducement impact of environmental regulations (i.e., the Porter Hypothesis), in general, and the economic impacts of environmental regulations (here Annex VI of the MARPOL Convention) as it applies to shipping in Northern Europe, in particular. According to the review, the literature is still inconclusive and lacks a clear consensus on the economic and innovation inducement impacts of environmental regulations on maritime transport. Therefore, the review concludes in suggestions for further studies on the use of marine scrubber systems as an illustrative case study example.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
    • Handle: RePEc:ids:ijisde:v:10:y:2016:i:1:p:69-86
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.inderscience.com/link.php?id=73413
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. G. M.P. Swann, 2009. "The Economics of Innovation," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 13211.
    2. 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.
    3. Lambertini, Luca & Tampieri, Alessandro, 2012. "Vertical differentiation in a Cournot industry: The Porter hypothesis and beyond," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 34(3), pages 374-380.
    4. repec:dgr:umamer:2003011 is not listed on IDEAS
    5. Giulio Cainelli & Massimiliano Mazzanti & Roberto Zoboli, 2013. "Environmental performance, manufacturing sectors and firm growth: structural factors and dynamic relationships," Environmental Economics and Policy Studies, Springer;Society for Environmental Economics and Policy Studies - SEEPS, vol. 15(4), pages 367-387, October.
    6. Fabio Iraldo & Francesco Testa & Vlasis Oikonomou & Michela Melis & Marco Frey & Eise Spijker, 2009. "A literature review on the links between environmental regulation and competitiveness," Working Papers 200904, Scuola Superiore Sant'Anna of Pisa, Istituto di Management.
    7. Xepapadeas, Anastasios & de Zeeuw, Aart, 1999. "Environmental Policy and Competitiveness: The Porter Hypothesis and the Composition of Capital," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 37(2), pages 165-182, March.
    8. Ben Kriechel & Thomas Ziesemer, 2009. "The environmental Porter hypothesis: theory, evidence, and a model of timing of adoption," Economics of Innovation and New Technology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 18(3), pages 267-294.
    9. Feichtinger, Gustav & Hartl, Richard F. & Kort, Peter M. & Veliov, Vladimir M., 2005. "Environmental policy, the porter hypothesis and the composition of capital: Effects of learning and technological progress," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 50(2), pages 434-446, September.
    10. Susmita Dasgupta & Ashoka Mody & Subhendu Roy & David Wheeler, 2001. "Environmental Regulation and Development: A Cross-country Empirical Analysis," Oxford Development Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 29(2), pages 173-187.
    11. Andr, Francisco J. & Gonzlez, Paula & Porteiro, Nicols, 2009. "Strategic quality competition and the Porter Hypothesis," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 57(2), pages 182-194, March.
    12. Klaus Rennings & Christian Rammer, 2011. "The Impact of Regulation-Driven Environmental Innovation on Innovation Success and Firm Performance," Industry and Innovation, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 18(3), pages 255-283.
    13. Thomas Broberg & Per-Olov Marklund & Eva Samakovlis & Henrik Hammar, 2013. "Testing the Porter hypothesis: the effects of environmental investments on efficiency in Swedish industry," Journal of Productivity Analysis, Springer, vol. 40(1), pages 43-56, August.
    14. Rainer Quitzow, 2013. "Towards an integrated approach to promoting environmental innovation and national competitiveness," Innovation and Development, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 3(2), pages 277-296, October.
    15. repec:dgr:umamer:2005008 is not listed on IDEAS
    16. Dylan G. Rassier & Dietrich Earnhart, 2010. "The Effect of Clean Water Regulation on Profitability: Testing the Porter Hypothesis," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 86(2), pages 329-344.
    17. Isaksson, Lena Hoglund, 2005. "Abatement costs in response to the Swedish charge on nitrogen oxide emissions," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 50(1), pages 102-120, July.
    18. 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.
    19. Shunsuke Managi, 2004. "Competitiveness and environmental policies for agriculture: testing the Porter hypothesis," International Journal of Agricultural Resources, Governance and Ecology, Inderscience Enterprises Ltd, vol. 3(3/4), pages 310-324.
    20. Roberta De Santis, 2012. "Impact of Environmental Regulations on Trade in the Main EU Countries: Conflict or Synergy?," The World Economy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 35(7), pages 799-815, July.
    21. Christos Kontovas & Harilaos N. Psaraftis, 2011. "Reduction of emissions along the maritime intermodal container chain: operational models and policies," Maritime Policy & Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 38(4), pages 451-469, March.
    22. Veugelers, Reinhilde, 2012. "Which policy instruments to induce clean innovating?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 41(10), pages 1770-1778.
    23. repec:ner:maastr:urn:nbn:nl:ui:27-19334 is not listed on IDEAS
    24. Ambec, Stefan & Barla, Philippe, 2002. "A theoretical foundation of the Porter hypothesis," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 75(3), pages 355-360, May.
    25. Gulbrandsen, Lars H. & Stenqvist, Christian, 2013. "The limited effect of EU emissions trading on corporate climate strategies: Comparison of a Swedish and a Norwegian pulp and paper company," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 56(C), pages 516-525.
    26. Paul Lanoie & Michel Patry & Richard Lajeunesse, 2008. "Environmental regulation and productivity: testing the porter hypothesis," Journal of Productivity Analysis, Springer, vol. 30(2), pages 121-128, October.
    27. 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.
    28. Kemp, René & Pontoglio, Serena, 2011. "The innovation effects of environmental policy instruments — A typical case of the blind men and the elephant?," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 72(C), pages 28-36.
    29. Greaker, Mads, 2006. "Spillovers in the development of new pollution abatement technology: A new look at the Porter-hypothesis," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 52(1), pages 411-420, July.
    30. Thomas Roediger‐Schluga, 2003. "Some Micro‐Evidence on the “Porter Hypothesis” from Austrian VOC Emission Standards," Growth and Change, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 34(3), pages 359-379, August.
    31. Beise, Marian & Rennings, Klaus, 2005. "Lead markets and regulation: a framework for analyzing the international diffusion of environmental innovations," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 52(1), pages 5-17, January.
    32. 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.
    33. Mohammad Mazraati, 2011. "Challenges and prospects of international marine bunker fuels demand," OPEC Energy Review, Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries, vol. 35(1), pages 1-26, March.
    34. Antonioli, Davide & Mancinelli, Susanna & Mazzanti, Massimiliano, 2013. "Is environmental innovation embedded within high-performance organisational changes? The role of human resource management and complementarity in green business strategies," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 42(4), pages 975-988.
    35. Christos Constantatos & Markus Herrmann, 2011. "Market Inertia and the Introduction of Green Products: Can Strategic Effects Justify the Porter Hypothesis?," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 50(2), pages 267-284, October.
    36. Martin Enevoldsen, 2005. "The Theory of Environmental Agreements and Taxes," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 3464.
    37. Gilbert, Paul, 2014. "From reductionism to systems thinking: How the shipping sector can address sulphur regulation and tackle climate change," Marine Policy, Elsevier, vol. 43(C), pages 376-378.
    38. Rodenburg, E. & Tunstall, D. & van Bolhuis, F., 1995. "Environmental Indicators for Global Cooperation," Papers 11, World Bank - Global Environment Facility.
    39. repec:dgr:unumer:2007024 is not listed on IDEAS
    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. Roberto Rivas Hermann & Karin Wigger, 2017. "Eco-Innovation Drivers in Value-Creating Networks: A Case Study of Ship Retrofitting Services," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(5), pages 1-27, May.
    2. Aldieri, Luigi & Makkonen, Teemu & Paolo Vinci, Concetto, 2020. "Environmental knowledge spillovers and productivity: A patent analysis for large international firms in the energy, water and land resources fields," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 69(C).
    3. Aldieri, Luigi & Bruno, Bruna & Makkonen, Teemu & Vinci, Concetto Paolo, 2023. "Environmental innovations, geographically mediated knowledge spillovers, economic and environmental performance," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 81(C).
    4. Xiaoli Shi & Ying Chen & Qianju Cheng, 2022. "Environmental Regulation, Environmental Knowledge Spillover, and Regional Economic Growth in China: An Empirical Test Based on the Spatial Durbin Model," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(21), pages 1-23, November.
    5. Ignė Stalmokaitė & Johanna Yliskylä-Peuralahti, 2019. "Sustainability Transitions in Baltic Sea Shipping: Exploring the Responses of Firms to Regulatory Changes," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(7), pages 1-23, March.

    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. 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.
    2. André, Francisco J., 2015. "Strategic Effects and the Porter Hypothesis," MPRA Paper 62237, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    3. Flavio Delbono & Luca Lambertini, 2022. "Optimal emission taxation and the Porter hypothesis under Bertrand competition," Annals of Public and Cooperative Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 93(3), pages 755-765, September.
    4. Antonietti, Roberto & Marzucchi, Alberto, 2014. "Green tangible investment strategies and export performance: A firm-level investigation," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 108(C), pages 150-161.
    5. Davide Antonioli & Grazia Cecere & Massimiliano Mazzanti, 2018. "Information communication technologies and environmental innovations in firms: joint adoptions and productivity effects," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 61(11), pages 1905-1933, September.
    6. Lorena D’Agostino, 2015. "How MNEs respond to environmental regulation: integrating the Porter hypothesis and the pollution haven hypothesis," Economia Politica: Journal of Analytical and Institutional Economics, Springer;Fondazione Edison, vol. 32(2), pages 245-269, August.
    7. Dechezleprêtre, Antoine & Kozluk, Tomasz & Kruse, Tobias & Nachtigall, Daniel & de Serres, Alain, 2019. "Do Environmental and Economic Performance Go Together? A Review of Micro-level Empirical Evidence from the Past Decade or So," International Review of Environmental and Resource Economics, now publishers, vol. 13(1-2), pages 1-118, April.
    8. Eric Giraud-Héraud & Jean-Pierre Ponssard & Bernard Sinclair Desgagné & Louis-Georges Soler, 2016. "The agro-food industry, public health, and environmental protection: investigating the Porter hypothesis in food regulation," Review of Agricultural, Food and Environmental Studies, Springer, vol. 97(2), pages 127-140, September.
    9. Chiara Franco & Giovanni Marin, 2017. "The Effect of Within-Sector, Upstream and Downstream Environmental Taxes on Innovation and Productivity," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 66(2), pages 261-291, February.
    10. Qiu, Larry D. & Zhou, Mohan & Wei, Xu, 2018. "Regulation, innovation, and firm selection: The porter hypothesis under monopolistic competition," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 92(C), pages 638-658.
    11. Erik Hille & Patrick Möbius, 2019. "Environmental Policy, Innovation, and Productivity Growth: Controlling the Effects of Regulation and Endogeneity," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 73(4), pages 1315-1355, August.
    12. Spyros Arvanitis & Michael Peneder & Christian Rammer & Tobias Stucki & Martin Wörter, 2016. "Competitiveness and ecological impacts of green energy technologies: firm-level evidence for the DACH region," KOF Working papers 16-420, KOF Swiss Economic Institute, ETH Zurich.
    13. George van Leeuwen & Pierre Mohnen, 2017. "Revisiting the Porter hypothesis: an empirical analysis of Green innovation for the Netherlands," Economics of Innovation and New Technology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 26(1-2), pages 63-77, February.
    14. Rubashkina, Yana & Galeotti, Marzio & Verdolini, Elena, 2015. "Environmental regulation and competitiveness: Empirical evidence on the Porter Hypothesis from European manufacturing sectors," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 83(C), pages 288-300.
    15. Rammer, Christian & Gottschalk, Sandra & Peneder, Michael & Wörter, Martin & Stucki, Tobias & Arvanitis, Spyros, 2017. "Does energy policy hurt international competitiveness of firms? A comparative study for Germany, Switzerland and Austria," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 109(C), pages 154-180.
    16. Jana Hojnik, 2017. "In Pursuit of Eco-innovation," UPP Monograph Series, University of Primorska Press, number 978-961-7023-53-4.
    17. Costantini, Valeria & Mazzanti, Massimiliano, 2012. "On the green and innovative side of trade competitiveness? The impact of environmental policies and innovation on EU exports," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 41(1), pages 132-153.
    18. Doran, Justin & Ryan, Geraldine, 2012. "Regulation and Firm Perception, Eco-Innovation and Firm Performance," MPRA Paper 44578, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    19. Spyros Arvanitis & Michael Peneder & Christian Rammer & Tobias Stucki & Martin Wörter, 2016. "How Different Policy Instruments Affect the Creation of Green Energy Innovation: A Differentiated Perspective," KOF Working papers 16-417, KOF Swiss Economic Institute, ETH Zurich.
    20. Luca Lambertini & Giuseppe Pignataro & Alessandro Tampieri, 2022. "Competition among coalitions in a cournot industry: a validation of the porter hypothesis," The Japanese Economic Review, Springer, vol. 73(4), pages 679-713, October.

    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:ids:ijisde:v:10:y:2016:i:1:p:69-86. 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: Sarah Parker (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.inderscience.com/browse/index.php?journalID=33 .

    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.