IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/
MyIDEAS: Log in (now much improved!) to save this paper

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

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.

If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.

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

Paper provided by KOF Swiss Economic Institute, ETH Zurich in its series KOF Working papers with number 16-420.

as
in new window

Length: 29 pages
Date of creation: Nov 2016
Handle: RePEc:kof:wpskof:16-420
Contact details of provider: Postal:
Leonhardstrasse 21, CH-8092 Zürich

Phone: +41 44 632 42 39
Fax: +41 44 632 12 18
Web page: http://www.kof.ethz.ch
Email:


More information through EDIRC

References listed on IDEAS
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:

as
in new window


  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  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. 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.
  7. 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.
  8. Ambec, Stefan & Barla, Philippe, 2002. "A theoretical foundation of the Porter hypothesis," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 75(3), pages 355-360, May.
  9. 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, 09.
  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. 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.
  12. Harold Hotelling, 1931. "The Economics of Exhaustible Resources," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 39, pages 137-137.
  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. 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.
  15. 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.
  16. 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.
  17. George van Leeuwen & Pierre Mohnen, 2013. "Revisiting the Porter Hypothesis: An Empirical Analysis of Green Innovation for the Netherlands," CIRANO Working Papers 2013s-02, CIRANO.
  18. 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.
  19. 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.
  20. Veugelers, Reinhilde, 2012. "Which policy instruments to induce clean innovating?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 41(10), pages 1770-1778.
  21. 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.
  22. 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.
  23. 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.
  24. 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.
  25. Lorenzo Cappellari & Stephen P. Jenkins, 2003. "Multivariate probit regression using simulated maximum likelihood," Stata Journal, StataCorp LP, vol. 3(3), pages 278-294, September.
  26. Rammer, Christian & Gottschalk, Sandra & Peneder, Michael & Wörter, Martin & Stucki, Tobias & Arvanitis, Spyros, 2016. "Does energy policy hurt international competitiveness of firms? A comparative study for Germany, Switzerland and Austria," ZEW Discussion Papers 16-075, ZEW - Zentrum für Europäische Wirtschaftsforschung / Center for European Economic Research.
  27. 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.
Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

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: ()

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 references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link 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 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.

This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis using RePEc data.