IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/zbw/vfsc16/145671.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Environmental regulation and sustainable competitiveness: Evaluating the role of firm-level green investments in the context of the Porter hypothesis

Author

Listed:
  • Weche Gelübcke, John P.
  • Stoever, Jana

Abstract

We investigate the impact of environmental regulation on firm performance and investment behavior. Exploiting the case of a German water withdrawal regulation that is managed on the state level, we analyze firms’ reactions to an increase in the water tax using a regression-adjusted difference-in-differences approach. We analyze the individual firm’s response to a change in environmental regulation, distinguishing between add-on and integrated environmental investments. This allows us to include intra-firm innovations into our analysis, which are likely to be of importance for increasing resource-efficiency. Our results show that the regulation in question shows no sign of affecting firms’ overall competitiveness. The results imply that the predicted negative impact of the regulation on firms’ economic performance that was brought up before the introduction of the tax, does not seem to weigh heavily in this case. Nevertheless, when placed into a sustainable competitiveness context, the regulation considered does not qualify as an appropriate policy tool for fostering green growth.

Suggested Citation

  • Weche Gelübcke, John P. & Stoever, Jana, 2016. "Environmental regulation and sustainable competitiveness: Evaluating the role of firm-level green investments in the context of the Porter hypothesis," VfS Annual Conference 2016 (Augsburg): Demographic Change 145671, Verein für Socialpolitik / German Economic Association.
    • Handle: RePEc:zbw:vfsc16:145671
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/145671/1/VfS_2016_pid_6626.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Brännlund, Runar & Lundgren, Tommy, 2009. "Environmental policy without costs? A review of the Porter hypothesis," Umeå Economic Studies 766, Umeå University, Department of Economics.
    2. Boockmann Bernhard & Buch Claudia M. & Schnitzer Monika, 2014. "Evidenzbasierte Wirtschaftspolitik in Deutschland: Defizite und Potentiale," Perspektiven der Wirtschaftspolitik, De Gruyter, vol. 15(4), pages 307-323, December.
    3. Brännlund, Runar & Lundgren, Tommy, 2009. "Environmental policy without costs? A review of the Porter hypothesis," Sustainable Investment and Corporate Governance Working Papers 2009/1, Sustainable Investment Research Platform.
    4. 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.
    5. Jean Pierre Huiban & Camilla Mastromarco & Antonio Musolesi & Michel Simioni, 2015. "The impact of pollution abatement investments on technology: Porter hypothesis revisited," SEEDS Working Papers 0815, SEEDS, Sustainability Environmental Economics and Dynamics Studies, revised Apr 2015.
    6. Wagner, Joachim, 2013. "The granular nature of the great export collapse in German manufacturing industries, 2008/2009," Economics - The Open-Access, Open-Assessment E-Journal (2007-2020), Kiel Institute for the World Economy (IfW Kiel), vol. 7, pages 1-21.
    7. Bréchet, Thierry & Meunier, Guy, 2014. "Are clean technology and environmental quality conflicting policy goals?," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 38(C), pages 61-83.
    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. Rubashkina, Yana & Galeotti, Marzio & Verdolini, Elena, 2015. "Environmental regulation and competitiveness: Empirical evidence on the Porter Hypothesis from European manufacturing sectors," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 83(C), pages 288-300.
    10. Diane Dupont & Steven Renzetti, 2001. "The Role of Water in Manufacturing," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 18(4), pages 411-432, April.
    11. Baker, Erin & Shittu, Ekundayo, 2006. "Profit-maximizing R&D in response to a random carbon tax," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 28(2), pages 160-180, May.
    12. Brännlund, Runar & Lundgren, Tommy, 2008. "Environmental policy and profitability - Evidence from Swedish industry," Umeå Economic Studies 750, Umeå University, Department of Economics.
    13. Arnaud Reynaud, 2003. "An Econometric Estimation of Industrial Water Demand in France," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 25(2), pages 213-232, June.
    14. 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.
    15. repec:bla:canjag:v:58:y:2010:i:s1:p:515-530 is not listed on IDEAS
    16. John P. Weche, 2015. "Does green corporate investment really crowd out other business investment?," Working Paper Series in Economics 350, University of Lüneburg, Institute of Economics.
    17. Wayne B. Gray & Ronald J. Shadbegian, 1998. "Environmental Regulation, Investment Timing, and Technology Choice," Journal of Industrial Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 46(2), pages 235-256, June.
    18. Xepapadeas, Anastasios & de Zeeuw, Aart, 1999. "Environmental Policy and Competitiveness: The Porter Hypothesis and the Composition of Capital," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 37(2), pages 165-182, March.
    19. Brian R. Copeland & M. Scott Taylor, 2004. "Trade, Growth, and the Environment," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 42(1), pages 7-71, March.
    20. 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.
    21. Perino, Grischa & Requate, Till, 2012. "Does more stringent environmental regulation induce or reduce technology adoption? When the rate of technology adoption is inverted U-shaped," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 64(3), pages 456-467.
    22. John P. Weche Gelübcke & Isabella Wedl, 2014. "Environmental Protection by Foreign Firms in German Manufacturing: Does the Country of Origin Matter?," Schmollers Jahrbuch : Journal of Applied Social Science Studies / Zeitschrift für Wirtschafts- und Sozialwissenschaften, Duncker & Humblot, Berlin, vol. 134(3), pages 271-304.
    23. repec:bla:jindec:v:46:y:1998:i:2:p:235-56 is not listed on IDEAS
    24. Guido W. Imbens & Jeffrey M. Wooldridge, 2009. "Recent Developments in the Econometrics of Program Evaluation," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 47(1), pages 5-86, March.
    25. Prabal Roy Chowdhury, 2011. "The Porter hypothesis and hyperbolic discounting," Economics Bulletin, AccessEcon, vol. 31(1), pages 167-176.
    26. Rabah Amir & Marc Germain & Vincent Van Steenberghe, 2008. "On the Impact of Innovation on the Marginal Abatement Cost Curve," Journal of Public Economic Theory, Association for Public Economic Theory, vol. 10(6), pages 985-1010, December.
    27. Isaksson, Lena Hoglund, 2005. "Abatement costs in response to the Swedish charge on nitrogen oxide emissions," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 50(1), pages 102-120, July.
    28. Meyer, Bruce D, 1995. "Natural and Quasi-experiments in Economics," Journal of Business & Economic Statistics, American Statistical Association, vol. 13(2), pages 151-161, April.
    29. Bréchet, Thierry & Jouvet, Pierre-André, 2008. "Environmental innovation and the cost of pollution abatement revisited," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 65(2), pages 262-265, April.
    30. Andrew C. Worthington, 2010. "Commercial and industrial water demand estimation: Theoretical and methodological guidelines for applied economics research," Discussion Papers in Economics economics:201011, Griffith University, Department of Accounting, Finance and Economics.
    31. Rische, Marie-Christin & Röhlig, Andreas Marcus & Stöver, Jana, 2014. "Green, greener, grey: Disentangling different types of green growth," HWWI Research Papers 160, Hamburg Institute of International Economics (HWWI).
    32. Pearce, David W, 1991. "The Role of Carbon Taxes in Adjusting to Global Warming," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 101(407), pages 938-948, July.
    33. Brannlund, Runar & Lundgren, Tommy, 2009. "Environmental Policy Without Costs? A Review of the Porter Hypothesis," International Review of Environmental and Resource Economics, now publishers, vol. 3(2), pages 75-117, September.
    34. Runar Brännlund & Tommy Lundgren, 2010. "Environmental policy and profitability: evidence from Swedish industry," Environmental Economics and Policy Studies, Springer;Society for Environmental Economics and Policy Studies - SEEPS, vol. 12(1), pages 59-78, June.
    35. 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.
    36. 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.
    37. John P. Weche Gelübcke, 2011. "Ownership Patterns and Enterprise Groups in German Structural Business Statistics," Schmollers Jahrbuch : Journal of Applied Social Science Studies / Zeitschrift für Wirtschafts- und Sozialwissenschaften, Duncker & Humblot, Berlin, vol. 131(4), pages 635-647.
    38. Baker, Erin & Clarke, Leon & Shittu, Ekundayo, 2008. "Technical change and the marginal cost of abatement," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 30(6), pages 2799-2816, November.
    39. Don Fullerton & Gilbert E. Metcalf, 1997. "Environmental Taxes and the Double Dividends Hypothesis: Did You Really Expect Something for Nothing?," Discussion Papers Series, Department of Economics, Tufts University 9706, Department of Economics, Tufts University.
    40. Rassier, Dylan G. & Earnhart, Dietrich, 2015. "Effects of environmental regulation on actual and expected profitability," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 112(C), pages 129-140.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. 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. Nikos Chatzistamoulou & George Diagourtas & Kostas Kounetas, 2017. "Do pollution abatement expenditures lead to higher productivity growth? Evidence from Greek manufacturing industries," Environmental Economics and Policy Studies, Springer;Society for Environmental Economics and Policy Studies - SEEPS, vol. 19(1), pages 15-34, January.
    3. Haiyang Xia & Tijun Fan & Xiangyun Chang, 2019. "Emission Reduction Technology Licensing and Diffusion Under Command-and-Control Regulation," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 72(2), pages 477-500, February.
    4. Xie, Rong-hui & Yuan, Yi-jun & Huang, Jing-jing, 2017. "Different Types of Environmental Regulations and Heterogeneous Influence on “Green” Productivity: Evidence from China," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 132(C), pages 104-112.
    5. Dominique Bianco, 2022. "Does entrepreneurial behaviour matter for the strong Porter hypothesis?," Economics Bulletin, AccessEcon, vol. 42(2), pages 867-876.
    6. Huang, Youxing & Xu, Qi & Zhao, Yanping, 2021. "Short-run pain, long-run gain: Desulfurization investment and productivity," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 102(C).
    7. 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.
    8. Earnhart, Dietrich & Germeshausen, Robert & von Graevenitz, Kathrine, 2022. "Effects of information-based regulation on financial outcomes: Evidence from the European Union's public emission registry," ZEW Discussion Papers 22-015, ZEW - Leibniz Centre for European Economic Research.
    9. Anabel Zárate-Marco & Jaime Vallés-Giménez, 2015. "Environmental tax and productivity in a decentralized context: new findings on the Porter hypothesis," European Journal of Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 40(2), pages 313-339, October.
    10. Rexhäuser, Sascha & Rammer, Christian, 2011. "Unmasking the Porter hypothesis: Environmental innovations and firm-profitability," ZEW Discussion Papers 11-036, ZEW - Leibniz Centre for European Economic Research.
    11. Perino, Grischa & Requate, Till, 2012. "Does more stringent environmental regulation induce or reduce technology adoption? When the rate of technology adoption is inverted U-shaped," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 64(3), pages 456-467.
    12. Johan Brolund & Robert Lundmark, 2017. "Effect of Environmental Regulation Stringency on the Pulp and Paper Industry," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(12), pages 1-16, December.
    13. Tommy Lundgren & Per-Olov Marklund, 2015. "Climate policy, environmental performance, and profits," Journal of Productivity Analysis, Springer, vol. 44(3), pages 225-235, December.
    14. Lundgren, Tommy & Marklund, Per-Olov & Samakovlis, Eva & Zhou, Wenchao, 2013. "Carbon Prices and Incentives for Technological Development," CERE Working Papers 2013:4, CERE - the Center for Environmental and Resource Economics.
    15. André, Francisco J., 2015. "Strategic Effects and the Porter Hypothesis," MPRA Paper 62237, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    16. Huang, Jingchang & Zhao, Jing & Cao, June, 2021. "Environmental regulation and corporate R&D investment—evidence from a quasi-natural experiment," International Review of Economics & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 72(C), pages 154-174.
    17. Antoine Dechezleprêtre & Misato Sato, 2017. "The Impacts of Environmental Regulations on Competitiveness," Review of Environmental Economics and Policy, Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 11(2), pages 183-206.
    18. 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.
    19. 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.
    20. Chiara Franco & Giovanni Marin, 2017. "The Effect of Within-Sector, Upstream and Downstream Environmental Taxes on Innovation and Productivity," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 66(2), pages 261-291, February.

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • O31 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Innovation; Research and Development; Technological Change; Intellectual Property Rights - - - Innovation and Invention: Processes and Incentives
    • 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:vfsc16:145671. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    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/vfsocea.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.