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

The environmental Porter hypothesis: theory, evidence, and a model of timing of adoption

  • Ben Kriechel
  • Thomas Ziesemer

The Porter hypothesis postulates that the costs of compliance with environmental standards may be offset by adoption of innovations they trigger. We model this hypothesis using a game of timing of technology adoption. We will show that times of adoption will be earlier if the non-adoption tax is higher. The environmental tax will turn the preemption game with low profits into a game with credible precommitment generating higher profits (pro-Porter). If there is a precommitment game without environmental taxes, the introduction of a tax will lead to lower profits (anti-Porter). An evaluation of the empirical literature indicates that the Porter hypothesis will hold even for profit-maximizing firms under multiple market imperfections such as imperfect competition, X-inefficiency, and agency costs. These are more likely to be present in sectors with large firms. In many case studies that we have evaluated, though, we detected an element of explicit or implicit subsidies for environmentally friendly behaviour, which is in line with Pigovian policies.

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: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

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 Taylor & Francis Journals in its journal Economics of Innovation and New Technology.

Volume (Year): 18 (2009)
Issue (Month): 3 ()
Pages: 267-294

in new window

Handle: RePEc:taf:ecinnt:v:18:y:2009:i:3:p:267-294
Contact details of provider: Web page:

Order Information: Web:

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. Fudenberg, Drew & Tirole, Jean, 1985. "Preemption and Rent Equilization in the Adoption of New Technology," Review of Economic Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 52(3), pages 383-401, July.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. Ulph, Alistair, 1996. "Environmental Policy and International Trade when Governments and Producers Act Strategically," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 30(3), pages 265-281, May.
  5. Armin Schmutzler, 1998. "Environmental Regulations and Managerial Myopia," SOI - Working Papers 9903, Socioeconomic Institute - University of Zurich.
  6. Adam B. Jaffe & Karen Palmer, 1996. "Environmental Regulation and Innovation: A Panel Data Study," NBER Working Papers 5545, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
  7. Smith, V Kerry & Walsh, Randy, 2000. " Do Painless Environmental Policies Exist?," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 21(1), pages 73-94, July.
  8. Fudenberg, Drew & Tirole, Jean, 1987. "Understanding Rent Dissipation: On the Use of Game Theory in Industrial Organization," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 77(2), pages 176-83, May.
  9. 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.
  10. 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.
  11. Feichtinger, G. & Hartl, R.F. & Kort, P.M. & Veliov, V., 2003. "Environmental Policy, the Porter Hypothesis and the Composition of Capital : Effects of Learning and Technological Progress," Discussion Paper 2003-61, Tilburg University, Center for Economic Research.
  12. Robert Ayres, 1994. "On economic disequilibrium and free lunch," Environmental & Resource Economics, European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 4(5), pages 435-454, October.
  13. Ambec, Stefan & Barla, Philippe, 2005. "Can Environmental Regulations be Good for Business? an Assessment of the Porter Hypothesis," Cahiers de recherche 0505, Université Laval - Département d'économique.
  14. Jean Tirole, 1988. "The Theory of Industrial Organization," MIT Press Books, The MIT Press, edition 1, volume 1, number 0262200716, June.
  15. 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.
  16. Popp David, 2005. "Uncertain R&D and the Porter Hypothesis," The B.E. Journal of Economic Analysis & Policy, De Gruyter, vol. 4(1), pages 1-16, June.
  17. Simpson, R. David & Bradford, Robert III, 1996. "Taxing Variable Cost: Environmental Regulation as Industrial Policy," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 30(3), pages 282-300, May.
  18. Martin Klein & Jaqueline Rothfels, . "Can Environmental Regulation of X-Ineffecient Firms Create a -Double Dividend-?," IWH Discussion Papers 103, Halle Institute for Economic Research.
  19. 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.
  20. Ebru Alpay & Joe Kerkvliet & Steven Buccola, 2002. "Productivity Growth and Environmental Regulation in Mexican and U.S. Food Manufacturing," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 84(4), pages 887-901.
  21. 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.
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:taf:ecinnt:v:18:y:2009:i:3:p:267-294. 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: (Michael McNulty)

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.