IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ces/ceswps/_12528.html

R&D Strategies of Polluting Firms Facing an Emissions Tax: Cost Reduction Versus Pollution Abatement

Author

Listed:
  • Shoji Haruna
  • Rajeev K. Goel
  • Kenta Yoshioka

Abstract

Firms’ efforts to reduce pollution emissions in their production processes are induced by market forces as well as governmental regulatory instruments. The market forces, which might induce firms to increase production to maximize profits, work at cross-purposes. One of the common solutions is that firms resort to R&D investment, which lowers production costs with greater pollution being an unwelcome by-product (the tax burden effect). Pollution abatement (PA) investment, which is another solution, focuses on reducing emissions, with no direct impacts on production costs. We evaluate whether R&D investment effectively plays a role in profit maximization depends on the tax burden effect. Besides, judging from a socio-economic perspective, the PA strategy is significantly superior to the R&D strategy when (pollution) damage cost parameters are medium or high. However, the reverse result holds when they are small. Our findings thus formally flesh out the implications of choosing R&D versus PA strategies in response to pollution control regulations.

Suggested Citation

  • Shoji Haruna & Rajeev K. Goel & Kenta Yoshioka, 2026. "R&D Strategies of Polluting Firms Facing an Emissions Tax: Cost Reduction Versus Pollution Abatement," CESifo Working Paper Series 12528, CESifo.
  • Handle: RePEc:ces:ceswps:_12528
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.ifo.de/DocDL/cesifo1_wp12528.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Goeschl, Timo & Perino, Grischa, 2009. "On backstops and boomerangs: Environmental R&D under technological uncertainty," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 31(5), pages 800-809, September.
    2. Jung, Chulho & Krutilla, Kerry & Boyd, Roy, 1996. "Incentives for Advanced Pollution Abatement Technology at the Industry Level: An Evaluation of Policy Alternatives," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 30(1), pages 95-111, January.
    3. Goel, Rajeev K. & Hsieh, Edward W.T., 2006. "On coordinating environmental policy and technology policy," Journal of Policy Modeling, Elsevier, vol. 28(8), pages 897-908, November.
    4. Kamien,Morton I. & Schwartz,Nancy L., 1982. "Market Structure and Innovation," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521293853, December.
    5. Kamien, Morton I & Muller, Eitan & Zang, Israel, 1992. "Research Joint Ventures and R&D Cartels," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 82(5), pages 1293-1306, December.
    6. Shoji Haruna & Rajeev K. Goel, 2019. "Optimal pollution control in a mixed oligopoly with research spillovers," Australian Economic Papers, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 58(1), pages 21-40, March.
    7. Requate, Till & Unold, Wolfram, 2003. "Environmental policy incentives to adopt advanced abatement technology:: Will the true ranking please stand up?," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 47(1), pages 125-146, February.
    8. Carter Bloch, 2013. "R&D spillovers and productivity: an analysis of geographical and technological dimensions," Economics of Innovation and New Technology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 22(5), pages 447-460, July.
    9. Downing, Paul B. & White, Lawrence J., 1986. "Innovation in pollution control," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 13(1), pages 18-29, March.
    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. Shoji Haruna & Rajeev K. Goel, 2019. "Optimal pollution control in a mixed oligopoly with research spillovers," Australian Economic Papers, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 58(1), pages 21-40, March.
    2. Dato,Prudence Zowadan & Krysiak,Frank & Nolde,Christian & Timilsina,Govinda R., 2023. "Who Should Drive Green Technology Transitions in Developing Countries : State-OwnedEnterprises versus Private Firms," Policy Research Working Paper Series 10506, The World Bank.
    3. Nentjes, Andries & de Vries, Frans P. & Wiersma, Doede, 2007. "Technology-forcing through environmental regulation," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 23(4), pages 903-916, December.
    4. Greaker, Mads & Rosendahl, Knut Einar, 2008. "Environmental policy with upstream pollution abatement technology firms," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 56(3), pages 246-259, November.
    5. Martin Larsson, 2017. "EU Emissions Trading: Policy-Induced Innovation, or Business as Usual? Findings from Company Case Studies in the Republic of Croatia," Working Papers 1705, The Institute of Economics, Zagreb.
    6. Helm Carsten & Schöttner Anja, 2008. "Subsidizing Technological Innovations in the Presence of R&D Spillovers," German Economic Review, De Gruyter, vol. 9(3), pages 339-353, August.
    7. Lee, Jaegul & Veloso, Francisco M. & Hounshell, David A., 2011. "Linking induced technological change, and environmental regulation: Evidence from patenting in the U.S. auto industry," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 40(9), pages 1240-1252.
    8. Baker, Erin & Clarke, Leon & Shittu, Ekundayo, 2008. "Technical change and the marginal cost of abatement," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 30(6), pages 2799-2816, November.
    9. Spyros Arvanitis & Michael Peneder & Christian Rammer & Tobias Stucki & Martin Wörter, 2016. "The adoption of green energy technologies: The role of policies in an international comparison," KOF Working papers 16-411, KOF Swiss Economic Institute, ETH Zurich.
    10. Zeng, Bingxin & Zhu, Lei & Yao, Xing, 2020. "Policy choice for end-of-pipe abatement technology adoption under technological uncertainty," Economic Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 87(C), pages 121-130.
    11. Jessica Coria & Magnus Hennlock, 2012. "Taxes, permits and costly policy response to technological change," Environmental Economics and Policy Studies, Springer;Society for Environmental Economics and Policy Studies - SEEPS, vol. 14(1), pages 35-60, January.
    12. Eva Camacho-Cuena & Till Requate & Israel Waichman, 2012. "Investment Incentives Under Emission Trading: An Experimental Study," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 53(2), pages 229-249, October.
    13. Bouwe R. Dijkstra & Maria J. Gil‐Moltó, 2018. "Is emission intensity or output U‐shaped in the strictness of environmental policy?," Journal of Public Economic Theory, Association for Public Economic Theory, vol. 20(2), pages 177-201, April.
    14. Alejandro Caparrós & Richard E. Just & David Zilberman, 2015. "Dynamic Relative Standards versus Emission Taxes in a Putty-Clay Model," Journal of the Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, University of Chicago Press, vol. 2(2), pages 277-308.
    15. Mehdi Fadaee & Luca Lambertini, 2015. "Non-tradeable pollution permits as green R&D incentives," Environmental Economics and Policy Studies, Springer;Society for Environmental Economics and Policy Studies - SEEPS, vol. 17(1), pages 27-42, January.
    16. van Soest, Daan P., 2005. "The impact of environmental policy instruments on the timing of adoption of energy-saving technologies," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 27(3), pages 235-247, October.
    17. Requate, Till, 2005. "Dynamic incentives by environmental policy instruments--a survey," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 54(2-3), pages 175-195, August.
    18. Krysiak, Frank C., 2008. "Prices vs. quantities: The effects on technology choice," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 92(5-6), pages 1275-1287, June.
    19. repec:bla:germec:v:9:y:2008:i::p:339-353 is not listed on IDEAS
    20. Rabah Amir & Marc Germain & Vincent Van Steenberghe, 2008. "On the Impact of Innovation on the Marginal Abatement Cost Curve," Journal of Public Economic Theory, Association for Public Economic Theory, vol. 10(6), pages 985-1010, December.
    21. Naoto Aoyama & Emilson C. D. Silva, 2022. "Abatement innovation in a Cournot oligopoly: emission versus output tax incentives," The Japanese Economic Review, Springer, vol. 73(2), pages 325-350, April.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    JEL classification:

    • Q58 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Environmental Economics - - - Environmental Economics: Government Policy
    • H23 - Public Economics - - Taxation, Subsidies, and Revenue - - - Externalities; Redistributive Effects; Environmental Taxes and Subsidies
    • O33 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Innovation; Research and Development; Technological Change; Intellectual Property Rights - - - Technological Change: Choices and Consequences; Diffusion Processes

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:ces:ceswps:_12528. 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: Klaus Wohlrabe (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/cesifde.html .

    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.