IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/kof/wpskof/16-420.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Competitiveness and ecological impacts of green energy technologies: firm-level evidence for the DACH region

Author

Abstract

For a large sample of enterprises in Germany, Austria and Switzerland (the “DACH“ region) we study the impact of various policy instruments, such as energy related taxes, subsidies, regulations and standards or negotiated agreements on the firm’s ecological and economic performance. To identify the causal linkages, we build a system of twelve equations, tracking first the impacts of policy on the adoption of green energy technologies for distinct areas. In a second set of equations, we estimate the perceived impacts of adoption on the firm’s (i) energy efficiency, (ii) carbon emissions and (iii) competitiveness. The results confirm a differentiated pattern of channels for policy to affect the firm’s energy efficiency and carbon emissions, while having a neutral impact on its competitiveness.

Suggested Citation

  • Spyros Arvanitis & Michael Peneder & Christian Rammer & Tobias Stucki & Martin Wörter, 2016. "Competitiveness and ecological impacts of green energy technologies: firm-level evidence for the DACH region," KOF Working papers 16-420, KOF Swiss Economic Institute, ETH Zurich.
  • Handle: RePEc:kof:wpskof:16-420
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.3929/ethz-a-010778153
    Download Restriction: no

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Kenneth Gillingham & Karen Palmer, 2014. "Bridging the Energy Efficiency Gap: Policy Insights from Economic Theory and Empirical Evidence," Review of Environmental Economics and Policy, Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 8(1), pages 18-38, January.
    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. Buchanan, James M & Tullock, Gordon, 1975. "Polluters' Profits and Political Response: Direct Controls Versus Taxes," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 65(1), pages 139-147, March.
    4. 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.
    5. Stefan Ambec & Mark A. Cohen & Stewart Elgie & Paul Lanoie, 2013. "The Porter Hypothesis at 20: Can Environmental Regulation Enhance Innovation and Competitiveness?," Review of Environmental Economics and Policy, Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 7(1), pages 2-22, January.
    6. Buenstorf, Guido, 2000. "Self-organization and sustainability: energetics of evolution and implications for ecological economics," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 33(1), pages 119-134, April.
    7. Martin Woerter & Tobias Stucki, 2016. "Intra-Firm Diffusion of Green Energy Technologies and the Choice of Policy Instruments," KOF Working papers 16-401, KOF Swiss Economic Institute, ETH Zurich.
    8. John Foster, 2014. "Energy, knowledge and economic growth," Journal of Evolutionary Economics, Springer, vol. 24(2), pages 209-238, April.
    9. Michael Peneder, 2017. "Competitiveness and industrial policy: from rationalities of failure towards the ability to evolve," Cambridge Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 41(3), pages 829-858.
    10. 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.
    11. Daron Acemoglu & Ufuk Akcigit & Douglas Hanley & William Kerr, 2016. "Transition to Clean Technology," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 124(1), pages 52-104.
    12. Horbach, Jens & Rammer, Christian & Rennings, Klaus, 2012. "Determinants of eco-innovations by type of environmental impact — The role of regulatory push/pull, technology push and market pull," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 78(C), pages 112-122.
    13. Elinor Ostrom, 2010. "Beyond Markets and States: Polycentric Governance of Complex Economic Systems," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 100(3), pages 641-672, June.
    14. repec:kap:enreec:v:68:y:2017:i:3:d:10.1007_s10640-016-0046-y is not listed on IDEAS
    15. George van Leeuwen & Pierre Mohnen, 2017. "Revisiting the Porter hypothesis: an empirical analysis of Green innovation for the Netherlands," Economics of Innovation and New Technology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 26(1-2), pages 63-77, February.
    16. repec:taf:applec:v:49:y:2017:i:49:p:4927-4945 is not listed on IDEAS
    17. Gene M. Grossman & Alan B. Krueger, 1995. "Economic Growth and the Environment," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 110(2), pages 353-377.
    18. Foster, John, 2011. "Energy, aesthetics and knowledge in complex economic systems," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 80(1), pages 88-100.
    19. Paul Lanoie & Jérémy Laurent‐Lucchetti & Nick Johnstone & Stefan Ambec, 2011. "Environmental Policy, Innovation and Performance: New Insights on the Porter Hypothesis," Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 20(3), pages 803-842, September.
    20. Robert N. Stavins, 2011. "The Problem of the Commons: Still Unsettled after 100 Years," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 101(1), pages 81-108, February.
    21. 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.
    22. repec:eee:enepol:v:109:y:2017:i:c:p:154-180 is not listed on IDEAS
    23. Jeroen Bergh, 2007. "Evolutionary thinking in environmental economics," Journal of Evolutionary Economics, Springer, vol. 17(5), pages 521-549, October.
    24. Kenneth J. Arrow & Anthony C. Fisher, 1974. "Environmental Preservation, Uncertainty, and Irreversibility," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 88(2), pages 312-319.
    25. 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.
    26. Jaffe, Adam B. & Newell, Richard G. & Stavins, Robert N., 2005. "A tale of two market failures: Technology and environmental policy," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 54(2-3), pages 164-174, August.
    27. 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.
    28. Gilbert E. Metcalf, 2009. "Market-Based Policy Options to Control U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 23(2), pages 5-27, Spring.
    29. Andr, Francisco J. & Gonzlez, Paula & Porteiro, Nicols, 2009. "Strategic quality competition and the Porter Hypothesis," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 57(2), pages 182-194, March.
    30. Yiannis Kountouris & Kyriaki Remoundou, 2016. "Cultural Influence on Preferences and Attitudes for Environmental Quality," Kyklos, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 69(2), pages 369-397, May.
    31. Christos Constantatos & Markus Herrmann, 2011. "Market Inertia and the Introduction of Green Products: Can Strategic Effects Justify the Porter Hypothesis?," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 50(2), pages 267-284, October.
    32. Madhu Khanna & George Deltas & Donna Harrington, 2009. "Adoption of Pollution Prevention Techniques: The Role of Management Systems and Regulatory Pressures," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 44(1), pages 85-106, September.
    33. Ambec, Stefan & Barla, Philippe, 2002. "A theoretical foundation of the Porter hypothesis," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 75(3), pages 355-360, May.
    34. Karen Palmer & Wallace E. Oates & Paul R. Portney, 1995. "Tightening Environmental Standards: The Benefit-Cost or the No-Cost Paradigm?," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 9(4), pages 119-132, Fall.
    35. Roger Fouquet, 2014. "Editor's Choice Long-Run Demand for Energy Services: Income and Price Elasticities over Two Hundred Years," Review of Environmental Economics and Policy, Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 8(2), pages 186-207.
    36. Harold Hotelling, 1931. "The Economics of Exhaustible Resources," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 39, pages 137-137.
    37. Carl Pasurka, 2008. "Perspectives on Pollution Abatement and Competitiveness: Theory, Data, and Analyses," Review of Environmental Economics and Policy, Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 2(2), pages 194-218, Summer.
    38. Weitzman, Martin L., 1998. "Why the Far-Distant Future Should Be Discounted at Its Lowest Possible Rate," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 36(3), pages 201-208, November.
    39. Veugelers, Reinhilde, 2012. "Which policy instruments to induce clean innovating?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 41(10), pages 1770-1778.
    40. Millner, Antony & Olivier, Helene, 2016. "Beliefs, politics, and environmental policy," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 67299, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    41. Antony Millner & Hélène Ollivier, 2016. "Beliefs, Politics, and Environmental Policy," Review of Environmental Economics and Policy, Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 10(2), pages 226-244.
    42. Lawrence H. Goulder & Ian W. H. Parry, 2008. "Instrument Choice in Environmental Policy," Review of Environmental Economics and Policy, Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 2(2), pages 152-174, Summer.
    43. Lorenzo Cappellari & Stephen P. Jenkins, 2003. "Multivariate probit regression using simulated maximum likelihood," Stata Journal, StataCorp LP, vol. 3(3), pages 278-294, September.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Environmental policy; Energy policy; Technology adoption; Innovation; Porter hypothesis;

    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:kof:wpskof:16-420. 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: (). General contact details of provider: http://edirc.repec.org/data/koethch.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.