IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/buseth/v34y2025i1p69-80.html

Resource‐efficiency actions and financial performance: Exploring the moderating role of production cost

Author

Listed:
  • Muhammad Ishfaq Ahmad
  • Muhammad Akram Naseem
  • Enrico Battisti
  • Ramiz Ur Rehman
  • Guido Giovando

Abstract

This study employs the Porter hypothesis framework to test the moderating role of production cost in the relationship between resource‐efficiency actions and financial performance for German small and medium‐sized enterprises (SMEs). For this purpose, we employ the 2012, 2018, and 2021 Flash Eurobarometer surveys to analyze how consistently SMEs adopt resource‐efficiency actions, and the impact of these actions on their performance and costs. We also conduct a generalized method of moments regression analysis (GMM). Among the seven resource‐efficiency actions proposed, saving water had a significant positive (negative) influence on financial performance in 2012, 2021, and (2018). Saving energy and using renewable energy had a positive and significant (insignificant) effect on financial performance in 2018, 2021, and (2012). Finally, selling scrap material to other companies had a positive and significant impact in all years. Furthermore, increased production costs negatively moderate the relationship between eco‐efficiency action scores and financial performance. The results indicate that the “strong” version of the Porter hypothesis is not supported: It only holds when the implementation of eco‐efficiency actions reduces production costs and increases financial performance.

Suggested Citation

  • Muhammad Ishfaq Ahmad & Muhammad Akram Naseem & Enrico Battisti & Ramiz Ur Rehman & Guido Giovando, 2025. "Resource‐efficiency actions and financial performance: Exploring the moderating role of production cost," Business Ethics, the Environment & Responsibility, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 34(1), pages 69-80, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:wly:buseth:v:34:y:2025:i:1:p:69-80
    DOI: 10.1111/beer.12587
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/beer.12587
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/beer.12587?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Brigitte Hoogendoorn & Daniela Guerra & Peter Zwan, 2015. "What drives environmental practices of SMEs?," Small Business Economics, Springer, vol. 44(4), pages 759-781, April.
    2. Berchicci, L. & King, A.A., 2007. "Postcards from the Edge: A Review of the Business and Environment Literature," ERIM Report Series Research in Management ERS-2007-085-ORG, Erasmus Research Institute of Management (ERIM), ERIM is the joint research institute of the Rotterdam School of Management, Erasmus University and the Erasmus School of Economics (ESE) at Erasmus University Rotterdam.
    3. Sascha Rexhäuser & Christian Rammer, 2014. "Environmental Innovations and Firm Profitability: Unmasking the Porter Hypothesis," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 57(1), pages 145-167, January.
    4. Danquah Jeff Boakye & Ishmael TIngbani & Gabriel Ahinful & Isaac Damoah & Venancio Tauringana, 2020. "Sustainable environmental practices and financial performance: Evidence from listed small and medium‐sized enterprise in the United Kingdom," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 29(6), pages 2583-2602, September.
    5. 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.
    6. Wen‐Min Lu & Qian Long Kweh & Irene Wei Kiong Ting & Chunya Ren, 2023. "How does stakeholder engagement through environmental, social, and governance affect eco‐efficiency and profitability efficiency? Zooming into Apple Inc.'s counterparts," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 32(1), pages 587-601, January.
    7. Bodas-Freitas, Isabel-Maria & Corrocher, Nicoletta, 2019. "The use of external support and the benefits of the adoption of resource efficiency practices: An empirical analysis of european SMEs," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 132(C), pages 75-82.
    8. 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.
    9. 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.
    10. Horváthová, Eva, 2010. "Does environmental performance affect financial performance? A meta-analysis," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(1), pages 52-59, November.
    11. Andrea Revell & Robert Blackburn, 2007. "The business case for sustainability? An examination of small firms in the UK's construction and restaurant sectors," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 16(6), pages 404-420, September.
    12. Junia A. Purwandani & Gilbert Michaud, 2021. "What are the drivers and barriers for green business practice adoption for SMEs?," Environment Systems and Decisions, Springer, vol. 41(4), pages 577-593, December.
    13. Cragg, John G, 1983. "More Efficient Estimation in the Presence of Heteroscedasticity of Unknown Form," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 51(3), pages 751-763, May.
    14. Elisabet Aguado & Adelheid Holl, 2018. "Differences of Corporate Environmental Responsibility in Small and Medium Enterprises: Spain and Norway," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(6), pages 1-13, June.
    15. Wang, Yun & Sun, Xiaohua & Guo, Xu, 2019. "Environmental regulation and green productivity growth: Empirical evidence on the Porter Hypothesis from OECD industrial sectors," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 132(C), pages 611-619.
    16. Riccardo Leoncini & Alberto Marzucchi & Sandro Montresor & Francesco Rentocchini & Ugo Rizzo, 2019. "‘Better late than never’: the interplay between green technology and age for firm growth," Small Business Economics, Springer, vol. 52(4), pages 891-904, April.
    17. Kounetas, Kostas & Tsekouras, Kostas, 2010. "Are the Energy Efficiency Technologies efficient?," Economic Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 27(1), pages 274-283, January.
    18. D. Perez‐Sanchez & J. R. Barton & D. Bower, 2003. "Implementing environmental management in SMEs," Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 10(2), pages 67-77, June.
    19. Giulio Cainelli & Massimiliano Mazzanti & Roberto Zoboli, 2011. "Environmentally oriented innovative strategies and firm performance in services. Micro-evidence from Italy," International Review of Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 25(1), pages 61-85.
    20. Robert D. Klassen & Curtis P. McLaughlin, 1996. "The Impact of Environmental Management on Firm Performance," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 42(8), pages 1199-1214, August.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. 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.
    2. 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.
    3. Pinget, Amandine, 2016. "Spécificités des déterminants des innovations environnementales : une approche appliquée aux PME [Specificities of determinants for environmental innovation : an approach applied to SMEs]," MPRA Paper 80108, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    4. Jung‐Ah Hwang & Yeonbae Kim, 2017. "Effects of Environmental Regulations on Trade Flow in Manufacturing Sectors: Comparison of Static and Dynamic Effects of Environmental Regulations," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 26(5), pages 688-706, July.
    5. Huang, Youxing & Xu, Qi & Zhao, Yanping, 2021. "Short-run pain, long-run gain: Desulfurization investment and productivity," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 102(C).
    6. Francesco Nicolli & Francesco Vona & Lionel Nesta, 2012. "Determinants of Renewable Energy Innovation: Environmental Policies vs. Market Regulation," Working Papers 201204, University of Ferrara, Department of Economics.
    7. 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.
    8. de Vries, F.P. & Withagen, C.A.A.M., 2005. "Innovation and environmental stringency : The case of sulfur dioxide abatement," Other publications TiSEM 9f3f79ab-2646-4f72-845c-4, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
    9. Roediger-Schluge, Thomas, 2001. "The Stringency of Environmental Regulation and the 'Porter Hypothesis'," Research Memorandum 002, Maastricht University, Maastricht Economic Research Institute on Innovation and Technology (MERIT).
    10. Petra Andries & Ute Stephan, 2019. "Environmental Innovation and Firm Performance: How Firm Size and Motives Matter," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(13), pages 1-17, June.
    11. Cañón de Francia, Joaquín & Garcés Ayerbe, Concepción, 2006. "Repercusión económica de la certificación medioambiental ISO 14001," Cuadernos de Gestión, Universidad del País Vasco - Instituto de Economía Aplicada a la Empresa (IEAE).
    12. Concepción Garcés-Ayerbe & Pilar Rivera-Torres & Josefina L. Murillo-Luna & Cristina Suárez-Gálvez, 2022. "Does it pay more to be green in family firms than in non-family firms?," Review of Managerial Science, Springer, vol. 16(5), pages 1365-1386, July.
    13. Noordewier, Thomas G. & Lucas, Marilyn T., 2020. "On being green and profitable: Does industry context matter?," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 223(C).
    14. Wang, Ying & Li, Mingsheng, 2022. "Credit policy and its heterogeneous effects on green innovations," Journal of Financial Stability, Elsevier, vol. 58(C).
    15. Dietrich Earnhart & Dylan G. Rassier, 2016. "“Effective regulatory stringency” and firms’ profitability: the effects of effluent limits and government monitoring," Journal of Regulatory Economics, Springer, vol. 50(2), pages 111-145, October.
    16. Indrani Roy Chowdhury & Sandwip K. Das, 2011. "Environmental regulation, green R&D and the Porter hypothesis," Indian Growth and Development Review, Emerald Group Publishing Limited, vol. 4(2), pages 142-152, September.
    17. Davide Antonioli & Claudia Ghisetti & Massimiliano Mazzanti & Francesco Nicolli, 2022. "Sustainable production: The economic returns of circular economy practices," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 31(5), pages 2603-2617, July.
    18. Wang, Xiaoling & Zhang, Tianyue & Nathwani, Jatin & Yang, Fangming & Shao, Qinglong, 2022. "Environmental regulation, technology innovation, and low carbon development: Revisiting the EKC Hypothesis, Porter Hypothesis, and Jevons’ Paradox in China's iron & steel industry," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 176(C).
    19. Tilmann Rave & Ursula Triebswetter, 2006. "Economic impacts of environmental regulations," ifo Forschungsberichte, ifo Institute - Leibniz Institute for Economic Research at the University of Munich, number 30.
    20. Xiaoxu Wu & Rui Zhu & Tengjiao Wang & Yuhui Chen, 2025. "Market or Mandate? Exploring Synergistic Low‐Carbon Regulations and Green‐Biased Technological Progress," Managerial and Decision Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 46(8), pages 4093-4114, December.

    More about this item

    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:wly:buseth:v:34:y:2025:i:1:p:69-80. 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: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/journal/26946424 .

    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.