IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/rae/jourae/v90y2009i2p155-184.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Des billets verts pour des enterprises agricoles vertes

Author

Listed:
  • Paul Lanoie

    (HEC Montréal, Canada)

  • Daniel Llerena

    () (GAEL, UMR INRA/Université Pierre Mendès-France, BP 47, 38040 Grenoble cedex, France)

Abstract

[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.

Suggested Citation

  • Paul Lanoie & Daniel Llerena, 2009. "Des billets verts pour des enterprises agricoles vertes," Review of Agricultural and Environmental Studies - Revue d'Etudes en Agriculture et Environnement, INRA Department of Economics, vol. 90(2), pages 155-184.
  • Handle: RePEc:rae:jourae:v:90:y:2009:i:2:p:155-184
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://ageconsearch.umn.edu/bitstream/188531/2/90-2-155-184.pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. 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.
    2. Wall, Ellen & Weersink, Alfons & Swanton, Clarence, 2001. "Agriculture and ISO 14000," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 26(1), pages 35-48, February.
    3. 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.
    4. 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.
    5. 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.
    6. 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.
    7. Donald Marron, 2004. "Greener Public Purchasing as an Environmental Policy Instrument," OECD Journal on Budgeting, OECD Publishing, vol. 3(4), pages 71-105.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Porter hypothesis; agricultural firms; innovation; environmental performance;

    JEL classification:

    • L21 - Industrial Organization - - Firm Objectives, Organization, and Behavior - - - Business Objectives of the Firm
    • M11 - Business Administration and Business Economics; Marketing; Accounting; Personnel Economics - - Business Administration - - - Production Management
    • Q52 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Environmental Economics - - - Pollution Control Adoption and Costs; Distributional Effects; Employment Effects
    • Q55 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Environmental Economics - - - Environmental Economics: Technological Innovation

    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: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). General contact details of provider: http://edirc.repec.org/data/inrapfr.html .

    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 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.

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.