IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/zbw/zewdip/19033.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Environmental innovation and firm profitability: An analysis with respect to firm size

Author

Listed:
  • Axenbeck, Janna

Abstract

This paper investigates the effect of environmental innovations on firm profitability with respect to differences between small and medium-sized (SME) and large (LE) enterprises. Using data from the Mannheim Innovation Panel (MIP) 2015, results show that, in general, SME benefit more from environmental innovations than LE. This effect is particularly strong for resource efficiency-improving innovations induced by regulation. These environmental innovations are significantly related to an increase in profits of SME, whilst related to a decrease in profits of LE. A robustness check with data from the MIP 2009, however, does not confirm this result as the effect for LE is insignificant and differences between the two groups cannot be found in this survey wave. A reason why negative effects for LE are observed in the MIP 2015 - but not in the MIP 2009 - might be that most LE had already exploited the potentials of environmental innovations when they were surveyed in the MIP 2015. This is supported by evidence suggesting that size-related differences in the MIP 2015 are driven by a negative relationship between LE's profits and environmental innovations related to externalities that were reduced by innovations in periods before.

Suggested Citation

  • Axenbeck, Janna, 2019. "Environmental innovation and firm profitability: An analysis with respect to firm size," ZEW Discussion Papers 19-033, ZEW - Leibniz Centre for European Economic Research.
  • Handle: RePEc:zbw:zewdip:19033
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/202333/1/1672261473.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. 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.
    2. Becker, Randy A. & Pasurka, Carl & Shadbegian, Ronald J., 2013. "Do environmental regulations disproportionately affect small businesses? Evidence from the Pollution Abatement Costs and Expenditures survey," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 66(3), pages 523-538.
    3. Lucia Foster & John Haltiwanger & Chad Syverson, 2008. "Reallocation, Firm Turnover, and Efficiency: Selection on Productivity or Profitability?," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 98(1), pages 394-425, March.
    4. Rahbauer, Sebastian & Menapace, Luisa & Menrad, Klaus & Decker, Thomas, 2016. "Adoption of green electricity by small- and medium-sized enterprises in Germany," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 59(C), pages 1185-1194.
    5. Ambec, Stefan & Barla, Philippe, 2002. "A theoretical foundation of the Porter hypothesis," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 75(3), pages 355-360, May.
    6. Jana Stoever & John P. Weche, 2018. "Environmental Regulation and Sustainable Competitiveness: Evaluating the Role of Firm-Level Green Investments in the Context of the Porter Hypothesis," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 70(2), pages 429-455, June.
    7. Mattes, Katharina & Lerch, Christian & Jäger, Angela, 2015. "Ressourceneffiziente Produktion jenseits technischer Lösungen: Der Beitrag organisatorischer Instrumente bei der erfolgreichen Umsetzung einer energie- und materialeffizienten Produktion," Bulletins "German Manufacturing Survey" 69, Fraunhofer Institute for Systems and Innovation Research (ISI).
    8. Becker, Randy A. & Pasurka, Carl & Shadbegian, Ronald J., 2013. "Do environmental regulations disproportionately affect small businesses? Evidence from the Pollution Abatement Costs and Expenditures survey," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 66(3), pages 523-538.
    9. Mark A. Cohen & Adeline Tubb, 2018. "The Impact of Environmental Regulation on Firm and Country Competitiveness: A Meta-analysis of the Porter Hypothesis," Journal of the Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, University of Chicago Press, vol. 5(2), pages 371-399.
    10. Jaffe Adam B. & Stavins Robert N., 1995. "Dynamic Incentives of Environmental Regulations: The Effects of Alternative Policy Instruments on Technology Diffusion," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 29(3), pages 43-63, November.
    11. Andrew A. King & Michael J. Lenox, 2001. "Does It Really Pay to Be Green? An Empirical Study of Firm Environmental and Financial Performance: An Empirical Study of Firm Environmental and Financial Performance," Journal of Industrial Ecology, Yale University, vol. 5(1), pages 105-116, January.
    12. 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.
    13. Rammer, Christian & Crass, Dirk & Doherr, Thorsten & Hud, Martin & Hünermund, Paul & Iferd, Younes & Köhler, Christian & Peters, Bettina & Schubert, Torben, 2016. "Innovationsverhalten der deutschen Wirtschaft: Indikatorenbericht zur Innovationserhebung 2015," The Annual German Innovation Survey, Key Figures Reports 128149, ZEW - Leibniz Centre for European Economic Research.
    14. Mattes, Katharina & Jäger, Angela & Kelnhofer, Anton & Gotsch, Matthias, 2017. "Energieeffizienz im Betriebsalltag: Chancen durch Energiemanagement und Qualifikation," Bulletins "German Manufacturing Survey" 70, Fraunhofer Institute for Systems and Innovation Research (ISI).
    15. Nick Johnstone (ed.), 2007. "Environmental Policy and Corporate Behaviour," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 12551, 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. Egwakhe A. J & Falana R. B & Asikhia O. O & Magaji N, 2020. "Business Strategies and Competitive Advantage: Evidence from Flour Mill Companies in Lagos State, Nigeria," Journal of Economics and Behavioral Studies, AMH International, vol. 12(2), pages 17-26.

    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. Böhringer, Christoph & Moslener, Ulf & Oberndorfer, Ulrich & Ziegler, Andreas, 2012. "Clean and productive? Empirical evidence from the German manufacturing industry," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 41(2), pages 442-451.
    2. Massimiliano Mazzanti & Giovanni Marin & Susanna Mancinelli & Francesco Nicolli, 2015. "Carbon dioxide reducing environmental innovations, sector upstream/downstream integration and policy: evidence from the EU," Empirica, Springer;Austrian Institute for Economic Research;Austrian Economic Association, vol. 42(4), pages 709-735, November.
    3. Gonseth, Camille & Cadot, Olivier & Mathys, Nicole A. & Thalmann, Philippe, 2015. "Energy-tax changes and competitiveness: The role of adaptive capacity," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 48(C), pages 127-135.
    4. Erik Hille & Patrick Möbius, 2019. "Environmental Policy, Innovation, and Productivity Growth: Controlling the Effects of Regulation and Endogeneity," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 73(4), pages 1315-1355, August.
    5. 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.
    6. Martin, Ralf, 2009. "Why is the US so energy intensive?: evidence from US multinationals in the UK," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 28703, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    7. Michael Peneder & Spyros Arvanitis & Christian Rammer & Tobias Stucki & Martin Wörter, 2022. "Policy instruments and self-reported impacts of the adoption of energy saving technologies in the DACH region," Empirica, Springer;Austrian Institute for Economic Research;Austrian Economic Association, vol. 49(2), pages 369-404, May.
    8. Petra Andries & Ute Stephan, 2019. "Environmental Innovation and Firm Performance: How Firm Size and Motives Matter," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(13), pages 1-17, June.
    9. 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.
    10. Stefan Ambec & Paul Lanoie, 2007. "When and Why Does It Pay To Be Green?," CIRANO Working Papers 2007s-20, CIRANO.
    11. Nusrate Aziz & Belayet Hossain & Laura Lamb, 2022. "Does green policy pay dividends?," Environmental Economics and Policy Studies, Springer;Society for Environmental Economics and Policy Studies - SEEPS, vol. 24(2), pages 147-172, April.
    12. Brandi, Clara & Schwab, Jakob & Berger, Axel & Morin, Jean-Frédéric, 2020. "Do environmental provisions in trade agreements make exports from developing countries greener?," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 129(C).
    13. Bu, Maoliang & Qiao, Zhenzi & Liu, Beibei, 2020. "Voluntary environmental regulation and firm innovation in China," Economic Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 89(C), pages 10-18.
    14. Jean Pierre Huiban & Camilla Mastromarco & Antonio Musolesi & Michel Simioni, 2016. "The impact of pollution abatement investments on production technology: new insights from frontier analysis," SEEDS Working Papers 0716, SEEDS, Sustainability Environmental Economics and Dynamics Studies, revised Jul 2016.
    15. Dechezleprêtre, Antoine & Kozluk, Tomasz & Kruse, Tobias & Nachtigall, Daniel & de Serres, Alain, 2019. "Do Environmental and Economic Performance Go Together? A Review of Micro-level Empirical Evidence from the Past Decade or So," International Review of Environmental and Resource Economics, now publishers, vol. 13(1-2), pages 1-118, April.
    16. Jean Pierre Huiban & Camilla Mastromarco & Antonio Musolesi & Michel Simioni, 2018. "Reconciling the Porter hypothesis with the traditional paradigm about environmental regulation: a nonparametric approach," Journal of Productivity Analysis, Springer, vol. 50(3), pages 85-100, December.
    17. Chen, Zhongfei & Zhang, Xiao & Chen, Fanglin, 2021. "Do carbon emission trading schemes stimulate green innovation in enterprises? Evidence from China," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 168(C).
    18. Pang, Yu, 2018. "Profitable pollution abatement? A worker productivity perspective," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 52(C), pages 33-49.
    19. 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.
    20. Giulio Cainelli & Massimiliano Mazzanti & Sandro Montresor, 2012. "Environmental Innovations, Local Networks and Internationalization," Industry and Innovation, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 19(8), pages 697-734, November.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Firm Behavior; Firm Size; Porter hypothesis; Environmental Technology Adaption; Technological Innovation; Environmental Regulation;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • D22 - Microeconomics - - Production and Organizations - - - Firm Behavior: Empirical Analysis
    • L25 - Industrial Organization - - Firm Objectives, Organization, and Behavior - - - Firm Performance
    • Q52 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Environmental Economics - - - Pollution Control Adoption and Costs; Distributional Effects; Employment Effects
    • Q55 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Environmental Economics - - - Environmental Economics: Technological Innovation
    • Q58 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Environmental Economics - - - Environmental Economics: Government Policy

    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:zbw:zewdip:19033. 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/zemande.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: ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/zemande.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.