IDEAS home Printed from
MyIDEAS: Log in (now much improved!) to save this paper

Revisiting the porter hypothesis: An empirical analysis of green innovation for the Netherlands

  • Leeuwen, George van


    (Centraal Bureau voor Statistiek)

  • Mohnen, Pierre



Almost all empirical research that has attempted to assess the validity of the Porter hypothesis has started from reduced-form models, e.g. by using single-equation models for estimating the contribution of environmental regulation (ER) to productivity. This paper addresses the Porter Hypothesis within a structural approach that allows us to test what is known in the literature as the "weak" and the "strong" version of the Porter hypothesis. Our "Green Innovation" model includes three types of eco investments and non-eco R&D to explain differences in the incidence of innovation. Besides product and process innovations we recognize eco-innovation as a separate type of innovation output. We explicitly model the potential synergies of introducing the three types of innovations simultaneously and their synergy in affecting total factor productivity (TFP) performance. Using a comprehensive panel of firm-level data built from four surveys we aim to estimate the relative importance of energy price incentives as a market based type of ER and the direct effect of environmental regulation on eco investment and firms' decisions regarding the introduction of several types of innovations. The results of our analysis show a strong corroboration of the weak version of the Porter hypothesis but not of the strong version of the PH, in this case on TFP performance.

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:
Download Restriction: no

Paper provided by United Nations University - Maastricht Economic and Social Research Institute on Innovation and Technology (MERIT) in its series MERIT Working Papers with number 002.

in new window

Date of creation: 2013
Date of revision:
Handle: RePEc:unm:unumer:2013002
Contact details of provider: Postal:
P.O. Box 616, 6200 MD Maastricht

Phone: (31) (0)43 3883875
Fax: (31) (0)43 3216518
Web page:

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. Amemiya, Takeshi, 1984. "Tobit models: A survey," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 24(1-2), pages 3-61.
  2. Rennings, Klaus & Rammer, Christian, 2010. "The impact of regulation-driven environmental innovation on innovation success and firm performance," ZEW Discussion Papers 10-065, ZEW - Zentrum für Europäische Wirtschaftsforschung / Center for European Economic Research.
  3. Lorenzo Cappellari & Stephen P. Jenkins, 2003. "Multivariate probit regression using simulated maximum likelihood," Stata Journal, StataCorp LP, vol. 3(3), pages 278-294, September.
  4. Rexhäuser, Sascha & Rammer, Christian, 2011. "Unmasking the Porter hypothesis: Environmental innovations and firm-profitability," ZEW Discussion Papers 11-036, ZEW - Zentrum für Europäische Wirtschaftsforschung / Center for European Economic Research.
  5. Tobias Kretschmer & Eugenio J. Miravete & Jose C. Pernias, 2012. "Competitive Pressure and the Adoption of Complementary Innovations," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 102(4), pages 1540-70, June.
  6. Joshua S. Gans, 2012. "Innovation and Climate Change Policy," American Economic Journal: Economic Policy, American Economic Association, vol. 4(4), pages 125-45, November.
  7. Ziesemer, Thomas & Kriechel, Ben, 2007. "The Environmental Porter Hypothesis: Theory, Evidence and a Model of Timing of Adoption," MERIT Working Papers 024, United Nations University - Maastricht Economic and Social Research Institute on Innovation and Technology (MERIT).
  8. Milgrom, Paul & Roberts, John, 1995. "Complementarities and fit strategy, structure, and organizational change in manufacturing," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 19(2-3), pages 179-208, April.
  9. repec:dgr:umamer:2005008 is not listed on IDEAS
  10. repec:dgr:umamer:2003011 is not listed on IDEAS
  11. Marin, Giovanni, 2014. "Do eco-innovations harm productivity growth through crowding out? Results of an extended CDM model for Italy," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 43(2), pages 301-317.
  12. Rennings, Klaus & Rexhäuser, Sascha, 2010. "Long-term impacts of environmental policy and eco-innovative activities of firms," ZEW Discussion Papers 10-074, ZEW - Zentrum für Europäische Wirtschaftsforschung / Center for European Economic Research.
  13. Kemp René, 2010. "Eco-innovation: Definition, Measurement and Open Research Issues," Economia politica, Società editrice il Mulino, issue 3, pages 397-420.
  14. Daron Acemoglu & Philippe Aghion & Leonardo Bursztyn & David Hemous, 2009. "The Environment and Directed Technical Change," NBER Working Papers 15451, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
  15. Elie Tamer, 2003. "Incomplete Simultaneous Discrete Response Model with Multiple Equilibria," Review of Economic Studies, Oxford University Press, vol. 70(1), pages 147-165.
  16. Adam B. Jaffe & Karen Palmer, 1996. "Environmental Regulation and Innovation: A Panel Data Study," NBER Working Papers 5545, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
  17. Heckman, James J, 1978. "Dummy Endogenous Variables in a Simultaneous Equation System," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 46(4), pages 931-59, July.
  18. Pierre Desrochers, 2008. "Did the Invisible Hand Need a Regulatory Glove to Develop a Green Thumb? Some Historical Perspective on Market Incentives, Win-Win Innovations and the Porter Hypothesis," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 41(4), pages 519-539, December.
  19. Arthur Lewbel, 2007. "Coherency And Completeness Of Structural Models Containing A Dummy Endogenous Variable," International Economic Review, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 48(4), pages 1379-1392, November.
  20. Mohnen, Pierre & Röller, Lars-Hendrik, 2001. "Complementarities in Innovation Policy," CEPR Discussion Papers 2712, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
  21. Nicholas Z. Muller & Robert Mendelsohn & William Nordhaus, 2011. "Environmental Accounting for Pollution in the United States Economy," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 101(5), pages 1649-75, August.
  22. 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.
  23. Bruno Crépon & Emmanuel Duguet & Jacques Mairesse, 1998. "Research, Innovation and Productivity : An Econometric Analysis at the Firm Level," Working Papers 98-33, Centre de Recherche en Economie et Statistique.
  24. Michael Polder & George van Leeuwen & Pierre Mohnen & Wladimir Raymond, 2010. "Product, Process and Organizational Innovation: Drivers, Complementarity and Productivity Effects," CIRANO Working Papers 2010s-28, CIRANO.
  25. Kodde, David A & Palm, Franz C, 1986. "Wald Criteria for Jointly Testing Equality and Inequality Restriction s," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 54(5), pages 1243-48, September.
  26. Cerin, Pontus, 2006. "Bringing economic opportunity into line with environmental influence: A discussion on the Coase theorem and the Porter and van der Linde hypothesis," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 56(2), pages 209-225, February.
  27. repec:crs:wpaper:9833 is not listed on IDEAS
  28. Adam Jaffe & Richard Newell & Robert Stavins, 2002. "Environmental Policy and Technological Change," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 22(1), pages 41-70, June.
  29. Eugenio J. Miravete & José C. Pernías, 2006. "INNOVATION COMPLEMENTARITY AND SCALE OF PRODUCTION -super-," Journal of Industrial Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 54(1), pages 1-29, 03.
  30. Ambec, Stefan & Barla, Philippe, 2002. "A theoretical foundation of the Porter hypothesis," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 75(3), pages 355-360, May.
  31. Lorenzo Cappellari & Stephen P. Jenkins, 2006. "Calculation of multivariate normal probabilities by simulation, with applications to maximum simulated likelihood estimation," Stata Journal, StataCorp LP, vol. 6(2), pages 156-189, June.
  32. Ambec, Stefan & Barla, Philippe, 2005. "Can Environmental Regulations be Good for Business? an Assessment of the Porter Hypothesis," Cahiers de recherche 0505, GREEN.
  33. repec:dgr:unumer:2007024 is not listed on IDEAS
  34. Crepon, B. & Duguet, E. & Mairesse, J., 1998. "Research Investment, Innovation and Productivity: An Econometric Analysis at the Firm Level," Papiers d'Economie Mathématique et Applications 98.15, Université Panthéon-Sorbonne (Paris 1).
  35. 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.
  36. repec:ner:maastr:urn:nbn:nl:ui:27-19334 is not listed on IDEAS
  37. Jaffe, Adam B. & Newell, Richard G. & Stavins, Robert N., 2003. "Chapter 11 Technological change and the environment," Handbook of Environmental Economics, in: K. G. Mäler & J. R. Vincent (ed.), Handbook of Environmental Economics, edition 1, volume 1, chapter 11, pages 461-516 Elsevier.
  38. Marcus Wagner, 2004. "The Porter Hypothesis Revisited: A Literature Review of Theoretical Models and Empirical Tests," Public Economics 0407014, EconWPA.
  39. Mohr, Robert D., 2002. "Technical Change, External Economies, and the Porter Hypothesis," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 43(1), pages 158-168, January.
  40. Bruce Domazlicky & William Weber, 2004. "Does Environmental Protection Lead to Slower Productivity Growth in the Chemical Industry?," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 28(3), pages 301-324, July.
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:unm:unumer:2013002. 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: (Ad Notten)

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.