IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/h/spr/nrmchp/978-0-387-98176-5_9.html
   My bibliography  Save this book chapter

Win–Win Opportunities and Environmental Regulation: Test of the Porter Hypothesis

In: The Economics of Sustainable Development

Author

Listed:
  • Surender Kumar

    (TERI University)

  • Shunsuke Managi

    (Yokohama National University)

Abstract

Environmental regulation makes firms internalize the costs of environmental externality generated by them. It may result in firms complying with the regulation being less competitive in the market than the noncomplying firms. This conventional view about the effects of regulation on the competitiveness of firms has recently been subjected to scrutiny, especially in the context of empirically testing the so-called Porter hypothesis (Porter, 1990, 1991). Porter and van der Linde (1995) argue that properly designed environmental standards can trigger innovation that may partially or more than fully offset the costs of complying with them. Such “innovation offsets,” as one can call them, cannot only lower the net costs of meeting environmental regulations, but even lead to absolute advantage (p. 98). The authors further contend that innovation offsets occur mainly because pollution regulation is often coincident with improved efficiency of resource usage; the inference is that stiffer environmental regulation results in greater production efficiency. Many economists (e.g., Palmer et al., 1995) remain skeptical of the widespread existence of this hypothesis or such “win–win” opportunities. Although Palmer et al. clearly do not accept the basic arguments of the Porter hypothesis, they do agree that environmental regulation and production efficiency may be related. According to them, “we acknowledge that regulations have sometimes led to the discovery of cost saving or quality improving innovation; in other words, we do not believe that firms are ever vigilantly perched on their efficiency frontier.” However, they indicate that more systematic studies are needed to establish the extent of the effect. Indeed, empirical literature on the relationship between environmental regulation and production efficiency is still rather scarce. The objective of this chapter is to study the effect of environmental regulation relating to water pollution by the manufacturing industry in India on the productive efficiency of firms. The panel (time series–cross section) data of 92 water-polluting firms for the three-year period 1996–1999 are used to test the Porter hypothesis.

Suggested Citation

  • Surender Kumar & Shunsuke Managi, 2009. "Win–Win Opportunities and Environmental Regulation: Test of the Porter Hypothesis," Natural Resource Management and Policy, in: The Economics of Sustainable Development, chapter 0, pages 157-166, Springer.
  • Handle: RePEc:spr:nrmchp:978-0-387-98176-5_9
    DOI: 10.1007/978-0-387-98176-5_9
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    To our knowledge, this item is not available for download. To find whether it is available, there are three options:
    1. Check below whether another version of this item is available online.
    2. Check on the provider's web page whether it is in fact available.
    3. Perform a search for a similarly titled item that would be available.

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Younes Ben Zaied & Béchir Ben Lahouel, 2021. "Does environmental CSR performance matter for corporate financial performance? Evidence from panel quantile regression," Economics Bulletin, AccessEcon, vol. 41(3), pages 938-951.
    2. Luxin Yang & Yucheng Liu & Huihui Deng, 2023. "Environmental governance, local government competition and industrial green transformation: Evidence from China's sustainable development practice," Sustainable Development, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 31(2), pages 1054-1068, April.

    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:spr:nrmchp:978-0-387-98176-5_9. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    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.