Des billets verts pour des enterprises agricoles vertes
[paper in French] The conventional wisdom about environmental protection is that it comes at an additional cost on farmers imposed by the government, which may erode their global competitiveness. In fact, there are many ways through which improving the environmental performance of a farm can lead to a better economic performance, and not necessarily to an increase in cost. In this article, it is shown with short case studies how the Porter’s hypothesis can be applied to the agricultural sector. Following the framework developed by Lankoski (2006), and Ambec and Lanoie (2008), we argue, first, that a better environmental performance can lead to an increase in revenues through the following channels: a better access to certain markets, the possibility to differentiate products and the possibility to sell pollution-control technology. Second, a better environmental performance can lead to cost reductions in the following categories: regulatory cost; cost of material and energy; costs of capital and of labour.
Volume (Year): 90 (2009)
Issue (Month): 2 ()
|Contact details of provider:|| Postal: |
Web page: http://www.necplus.eu/action/displayJournal?jid=RAE
More information through EDIRC
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.:
- Gilles Grolleau & Naoufel Mzoughi & Alban Thomas, 2007. "What drives agrifood firms to register for an Environmental Management System?," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Foundation for the European Review of Agricultural Economics, vol. 34(2), pages 233-255, June.
- Franz Hackl & Martin Halla & Gerald J. Pruckner, 2007. "Local compensation payments for agri-environmental externalities: a panel data analysis of bargaining outcomes," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Foundation for the European Review of Agricultural Economics, vol. 34(3), pages 295-320, September.
- Donald Marron, 2003. "Greener Public Purchasing as an Environmental Policy Instrument," OECD Journal on Budgeting, OECD Publishing, vol. 3(4), pages 71-105.
- 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.
- Xepapadeas, A. & de Zeeuw, A.J., 1999. "Environmental policy and competitiveness : The Porter hypothesis and the composition of capital," Other publications TiSEM cfb3ecf9-1a3c-4325-ac1d-b, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
- Xepapadeas, A. & de Zeeuw, A.J., 1998. "Environmental Policy and Competitiveness : The Porter Hypothesis and the Composition of Capital," Discussion Paper 1998-38, Tilburg University, Center for Economic Research.
- Wall, Ellen & Weersink, Alfons & Swanton, Clarence, 2001. "Agriculture and ISO 14000," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 26(1), pages 35-48, February.
- 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.
- 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.
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:rae:jourae:v:90:y:2009:i:2:p:155-184. 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: (Nathalie Saux-Nogues)
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.