IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/pra/mprapa/82564.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Emission Cap Commitment versus Emission Intensity Commitment as Self-Regulation

Author

Listed:
  • Hirose, Kosuke
  • Matsumura, Toshihiro

Abstract

We compare emission cap commitment that restricts total emissions and emission intensity commitment that restricts emissions per unit of output as measures of self-regulation. The monopolist chooses either emission cap commitment or emission intensity commitment and sets the target level under the constraint that the resulting emissions do not exceed the upper limit. We find that profit-maximizing firms choose emission cap commitment, although emission intensity commitment always yields greater consumer surplus. It is ambiguous whether emission intensity commitment or emission cap commitment yields greater welfare. We present two cases in which emission intensity commitment yields greater welfare. One is the most stringent target case (the target emission level is close to zero), and the other is the weakest target case (the target emission level is close to business-as-usual). Our result suggests that the incentive for adopting emission cap commitment is too large for profit-maximizing firms, and thus, governments should encourage the adoption of emission intensity commitment, especially to achieve a zero-emission society efficiently.

Suggested Citation

  • Hirose, Kosuke & Matsumura, Toshihiro, 2017. "Emission Cap Commitment versus Emission Intensity Commitment as Self-Regulation," MPRA Paper 82564, University Library of Munich, Germany.
  • Handle: RePEc:pra:mprapa:82564
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/82564/1/MPRA_paper_82564.pdf
    File Function: original version
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. d'Aspremont, Claude & Jacquemin, Alexis, 1988. "Cooperative and Noncooperative R&D in Duopoly with Spillovers," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 78(5), pages 1133-1137, December.
    2. Glachant, Matthieu, 2007. "Non-binding voluntary agreements," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 54(1), pages 32-48, July.
    3. Matsumura, Toshihiro & Yamagishi, Atsushi, 2017. "Long-run welfare effect of energy conservation regulation," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 154(C), pages 64-68.
    4. Maxwell, John W & Lyon, Thomas P & Hackett, Steven C, 2000. "Self-Regulation and Social Welfare: The Political Economy of Corporate Environmentalism," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 43(2), pages 583-617, October.
    5. Rabah Amir & Adriana Gama & Katarzyna Werner, 2018. "On Environmental Regulation of Oligopoly Markets: Emission versus Performance Standards," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 70(1), pages 147-167, May.
    6. Kazuharu Kiyono & Jota Ishikawa, 2013. "Environmental Management Policy Under International Carbon Leakage," International Economic Review, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 54, pages 1057-1083, August.
    7. Rinaldo Brau & Carlo Carraro, 2011. "The design of voluntary agreements in oligopolistic markets," Journal of Regulatory Economics, Springer, vol. 39(2), pages 111-142, April.
    8. Segerson, Kathleen & Miceli, Thomas J., 1998. "Voluntary Environmental Agreements: Good or Bad News for Environmental Protection?," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 36(2), pages 109-130, September.
    9. Helfand, Gloria E, 1991. "Standards versus Standards: The Effects of Different Pollution Restrictions," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 81(3), pages 622-634, June.
    10. Georgy Egorov & Bård Harstad, 2017. "Private Politics and Public Regulation," Review of Economic Studies, Oxford University Press, vol. 84(4), pages 1652-1682.
    11. Lyon, Thomas P. & Maxwell, John W., 2003. "Self-regulation, taxation and public voluntary environmental agreements," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 87(7-8), pages 1453-1486, August.
    12. Besanko, David, 1987. "Performance versus design standards in the regulation of pollution," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 34(1), pages 19-44, October.
    13. Werner Antweiler, 2003. "How Effective Is Green Regulatory Threat?," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 93(2), pages 436-441, May.
    14. Sajal Lahiri & Yoshiyasu Ono, 2007. "Relative Emission Standard versus Tax under Oligopoly: The Role of Free Entry," Journal of Economics, Springer, vol. 91(2), pages 107-128, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Ino, Hiroaki & Matsumura, Toshihiro, 2021. "Optimality of emission pricing policies based on emission intensity targets under imperfect competition," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 98(C).

    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. Hirose, Kosuke & Matsumura, Toshihiro, 2018. "An Advantage of Emission Intensity Regulation for Emission Cap Regulation in a Near-Zero Emission Industry," MPRA Paper 90134, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    2. Hirose, Kosuke & Matsumura, Toshihiro, 2020. "A comparison between emission intensity and emission cap regulations," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 137(C).
    3. Hirose, Kosuke & Ishihara, Akifumi & Matsumura, Toshihiro, 2021. "Tax versus Regulations: Robustness to Polluter Lobbying Against Near-Zero Emission Targets," MPRA Paper 108380, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    4. Ino, Hiroaki & Matsumura, Toshihiro, 2021. "Optimality of emission pricing policies based on emission intensity targets under imperfect competition," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 98(C).
    5. Takuro Miyamoto, 2016. "Why regulators adopt voluntary programs: a theoretical analysis of voluntary pollutant reduction programs," Environmental Economics and Policy Studies, Springer;Society for Environmental Economics and Policy Studies - SEEPS, vol. 18(4), pages 599-623, October.
    6. R. Brau & C. Carraro, 2004. "The economic analysis of voluntary approaches to environmental protection. A survey," Working Paper CRENoS 200420, Centre for North South Economic Research, University of Cagliari and Sassari, Sardinia.
    7. Kathleen Segerson, 2013. "Voluntary Approaches to Environmental Protection and Resource Management," Annual Review of Resource Economics, Annual Reviews, vol. 5(1), pages 161-180, June.
    8. Pierre Fleckinger & Matthieu Glachant, 2009. "La responsabilité sociale de l’entreprise et les accords volontaires sont-ils complémentaires ?," Économie et Prévision, Programme National Persée, vol. 190(4), pages 95-105.
    9. Fleckinger, Pierre & Glachant, Matthieu, 2011. "Negotiating a voluntary agreement when firms self-regulate," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 62(1), pages 41-52, July.
    10. Ryo Ishida & Takuro Miyamoto, 2014. "Does an Optimal Voluntary Approach Flexibly and Efficiently Control Emissions from Heterogeneous Firms?," Discussion papers ron257, Policy Research Institute, Ministry of Finance Japan.
    11. Pierre Fleckinger & Matthieu Glachant, 2009. "La responsabilité sociale de l’entreprise et les accords volontaires sont-ils complémentaires ?," Économie et Prévision, Programme National Persée, vol. 190(4), pages 95-105.
    12. Kim, Hyunseok & Moschini, GianCarlo, 2021. "Emission Control by Voluntary Agreements: Oligopoly Markets with Green Consumers," 2021 Annual Meeting, August 1-3, Austin, Texas 313870, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    13. Rinaldo Brau & Carlo Carraro, 2011. "The design of voluntary agreements in oligopolistic markets," Journal of Regulatory Economics, Springer, vol. 39(2), pages 111-142, April.
    14. Anne-Sarah Chiambretto & Hubert Stahn, 2017. "Voluntary Management of Fisheries under an Uncertain Background Legislative Threat," Working Papers halshs-01500543, HAL.
    15. Shon R. Hiatt & Jake B. Grandy & Brandon H. Lee, 2015. "Organizational Responses to Public and Private Politics: An Analysis of Climate Change Activists and U.S. Oil and Gas Firms," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 26(6), pages 1769-1786, December.
    16. David M. McEvoy & John K. Stranlund, 2007. "Costly Enforcement of Voluntary Environmental Agreements with Industries," Working Papers 07-15, Department of Economics, Appalachian State University.
    17. Norah Mackendrick, 2005. "The role of the state in voluntary environmental reform: A case study of public land," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 38(1), pages 21-44, March.
    18. Glachant, Matthieu, 2007. "Non-binding voluntary agreements," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 54(1), pages 32-48, July.
    19. Madhu Khanna, 2001. "Non‐Mandatory Approaches to Environmental Protection," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 15(3), pages 291-324, July.
    20. Toshi H.Arimura & Shinji Kaneko & Shunsuke Managi & Takayoshi Shinkuma & Masashi Yamamoto & Yuichiro Yoshida, 2016. "Political Economy of Voluntary Approaches: A Lesson from Environmental Policies," Working Papers e107, Tokyo Center for Economic Research.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    self-regulation; emission intensity; emission cap; monopoly; zero-emission;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • L12 - Industrial Organization - - Market Structure, Firm Strategy, and Market Performance - - - Monopoly; Monopolization Strategies
    • L51 - Industrial Organization - - Regulation and Industrial Policy - - - Economics of Regulation
    • Q52 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Environmental Economics - - - Pollution Control Adoption and Costs; Distributional Effects; Employment Effects

    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:pra:mprapa:82564. 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: https://edirc.repec.org/data/vfmunde.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 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: Joachim Winter (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/vfmunde.html .

    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.