IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/gre/wpaper/2015-45.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

The Impact of REACH on Eco-Innovation: How Perception Misfits on Policy Stringency Matter

Author

Listed:
  • Nabila Arfaoui

    (Université Nice Sophia Antipolis
    GREDEG-CNRS)

  • Eric Brouillat

    (University of Bordeaux
    GREThA)

  • Maïder Saint-Jean

    (University of Bordeaux
    GREThA)

Abstract

This article provides new insights into the impact of various policy designs on firms' innovative activities of substituting dangerous chemicals with less damaging ones. Such a principle of substitution is at the heart of the REACH regulation enacted in 2007 to control potentially dangerous chemicals in the European Union (EU). In recent years, research scientists, government panels, and the popular press have denounced bisphenol-A (BPA) used in food packaging for its developmental effect as an endocrine disruptor. In this article, we develop an agent-based model (ABM) as an explorative tool to investigate how the policy design of REACH can help bring safer substitutes of bisphenols to market. We mimic the main mechanisms underlying REACH, suggest the importance of perceived stringency on eco-innovative activities, and address the issue of possible interaction among the various policy design aspects. The modeling exercise enables an analysis of misfits likely to emerge between objective and perceived stringency of regulation as well as misfits related to divergent perceptions between suppliers and clients. The model outcomes stress that the efficiency of severe regulation depends little on how agents perceive it; objective stringency is self-sufficient to stimulate technology transition. A severe regulation results in a stable oligopoly after experiencing an early but short turbulent phase because of the ban of the dangerous substance. This action calls for an assessment by policy makers of the necessary trade-offs between fast environmental and health benefits, temporary demand mismatches and higher market concentration. By contrast, the impact of a lenient regulation depends sorely on how agents perceive it. In particular, possible misfits in the perception of policy stringency between suppliers and clients may strengthen the efficiency of the regulation or, on the contrary, make it irrelevant. These findings highlight that the way stakeholders perceive the regulatory threat may be a key aspect to consider when fostering technological transition.

Suggested Citation

  • Nabila Arfaoui & Eric Brouillat & Maïder Saint-Jean, 2015. "The Impact of REACH on Eco-Innovation: How Perception Misfits on Policy Stringency Matter," GREDEG Working Papers 2015-45, Groupe de REcherche en Droit, Economie, Gestion (GREDEG CNRS), University of Nice Sophia Antipolis.
  • Handle: RePEc:gre:wpaper:2015-45
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.gredeg.cnrs.fr/working-papers/GREDEG-WP-2015-45.pdf
    File Function: First version, 2015
    Download Restriction: no

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Harstad, Bård & Eskeland, Gunnar S., 2010. "Trading for the future: Signaling in permit markets," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 94(9-10), pages 749-760, October.
    2. Daron Acemoglu & Philippe Aghion & Leonardo Bursztyn & David Hemous, 2012. "The Environment and Directed Technical Change," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 102(1), pages 131-166, February.
    3. Nesta, Lionel & Vona, Francesco & Nicolli, Francesco, 2014. "Environmental policies, competition and innovation in renewable energy," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 67(3), pages 396-411.
    4. Oosterhuis, Marian & Molleman, Eric & van der Vaart, Taco, 2013. "Differences in buyers’ and suppliers’ perceptions of supply chain attributes," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 142(1), pages 158-171.
    5. Martin L. Weitzman, 1980. "The "Ratchet Principle" and Performance Incentives," Bell Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 11(1), pages 302-308, Spring.
    6. Nick Johnstone & Ivan Haščič & Julie Poirier & Marion Hemar & Christian Michel, 2012. "Environmental policy stringency and technological innovation: evidence from survey data and patent counts," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 44(17), pages 2157-2170, June.
    7. Arfaoui, Nabila & Brouillat, Eric & Saint Jean, Maïder, 2014. "Policy design and technological substitution: Investigating the REACH regulation in an agent-based model," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 107(C), pages 347-365.
    8. Sylvain Béal & Marc Deschamps & Joël Thomas Ravix & Olivier Sautel, 2011. "Les effets d'une réglementation sur la concurrence et l'innovation : première analyse de la réglementation européenne REACH," Economie & Prévision, La Documentation Française, vol. 0(1), pages 63-79.
    9. Borghesi, Simone & Cainelli, Giulio & Mazzanti, Massimiliano, 2015. "Linking emission trading to environmental innovation: Evidence from the Italian manufacturing industry," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 44(3), pages 669-683.
    10. Frondel, Manuel & Horbach, Jens & Rennings, Klaus, 2008. "What triggers environmental management and innovation? Empirical evidence for Germany," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 66(1), pages 153-160, May.
    11. Sylvain Béal & Marc Deschamps, 2016. "On compensation schemes for data sharing within the European REACH legislation," European Journal of Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 41(1), pages 157-181, February.
    12. Rennings, Klaus, 2000. "Redefining innovation -- eco-innovation research and the contribution from ecological economics," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 32(2), pages 319-332, February.
    13. Fischer, Carolyn & Parry, Ian W. H. & Pizer, William A., 2003. "Instrument choice for environmental protection when technological innovation is endogenous," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 45(3), pages 523-545, May.
    14. Safarzyńska, Karolina & Frenken, Koen & van den Bergh, Jeroen C.J.M., 2012. "Evolutionary theorizing and modeling of sustainability transitions," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 41(6), pages 1011-1024.
    15. Jens Horbach & Vanessa Oltra & Jean Belin, 2013. "Determinants and Specificities of Eco-Innovations Compared to Other Innovations--An Econometric Analysis for the French and German Industry Based on the Community Innovation Survey-super-1," Industry and Innovation, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 20(6), pages 523-543, August.
    16. Steffen Brunner & Christian Flachsland & Robert Marschinski, 2012. "Credible commitment in carbon policy," Climate Policy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 12(2), pages 255-271, March.
    17. Marco Valente, 1998. "Laboratory for Simulation Development," DRUID Working Papers 98-5, DRUID, Copenhagen Business School, Department of Industrial Economics and Strategy/Aalborg University, Department of Business Studies.
    18. Kemp, René & Pontoglio, Serena, 2011. "The innovation effects of environmental policy instruments — A typical case of the blind men and the elephant?," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 72(C), pages 28-36.
    19. Lopolito, A. & Morone, P. & Taylor, R., 2013. "Emerging innovation niches: An agent based model," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 42(6), pages 1225-1238.
    20. Ghisetti, Claudia & Pontoni, Federico, 2015. "Investigating policy and R&D effects on environmental innovation: A meta-analysis," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 118(C), pages 57-66.
    21. Franco Malerba, 2006. "Innovation, Industrial Dynamics and Industry Evolution: Progress and the Research Agendas," Revue de l'OFCE, Presses de Sciences-Po, vol. 97(5), pages 21-46.
    22. Horbach, Jens, 2008. "Determinants of environmental innovation--New evidence from German panel data sources," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(1), pages 163-173, February.
    23. Brunnermeier, Smita B. & Cohen, Mark A., 2003. "Determinants of environmental innovation in US manufacturing industries," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 45(2), pages 278-293, March.
    24. Milliman, Scott R. & Prince, Raymond, 1989. "Firm incentives to promote technological change in pollution control," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 17(3), pages 247-265, November.
    25. Kesidou, Effie & Demirel, Pelin, 2012. "On the drivers of eco-innovations: Empirical evidence from the UK," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 41(5), pages 862-870.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    More about this item

    Keywords

    technology substitution; perceived stringency; REACH regulation; bisphenols; agent-based model (ABM);

    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:gre:wpaper:2015-45. 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: (Patrice Bougette). General contact details of provider: http://edirc.repec.org/data/credcfr.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.