Weitere Artikel dieser Ausgabe durch Wischen aufrufen
The paper analyses the relationship between environmental regulation and eco-innovation. The relationship is tested using a German firm-based panel and a dynamic count data model estimating the propensity of firms to innovate in response to five initiating factors, namely the fulfillment of existing legal requirements, expectations towards future legal requirements, financial incentives, demand for eco-innovations and self-commitment. The heterogeneity of firms is controlled for using R&D intensity, the size, the sector and the region of the company. The results answer the central question concerning the design of environmental policies in order to foster eco-innovation. Comparing a static model to a dynamic one shows that only long term objectives and market incentives are positively associated with eco-innovation. Conventional regulatory tools, namely legally binding instruments, are not effective for triggering innovative behavior at the firm level. The results do not allow to confirm the Porter hypothesis but rather offer a refined version, emphasizing the nuances that apply to the concept of “regulation”. The claim is that what matters is not the type of the policy instrument but rather the perception of the instrument by firms.
Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um Zugang zu diesem Inhalt zu erhalten
Sie möchten Zugang zu diesem Inhalt erhalten? Dann informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:
Aerts, K., & Czarnitzki, D. (2006). The impact of public R&D—funding in Flanders. Brussels: IWT.
Aggeri, F. (2000). Les politiques d’environnement comme politiques de l’innovation. In Gérer et Comprendre. Annales des Mines 60 (pp. 31–43).
Aggeri, F., & Hatchuel, A. (1999). A dynamic model of environmental policies. The case of innovation oriented voluntary agreements. In Voluntary approaches in environmental policy (pp. 151–185). Springer.
Ambec, S., & Barla, P. (2006). Can environmental regulations be good for business ? An assessment of the porter hypothesis. Energy Studies Review, 14, 42–62. CrossRef
Andersen, M. M. (2010). On the faces and phases of eco-innovation-on the dynamics of the greening of the economy. In Druid Summer Conference 2010. London, United Kingdom.
Andersen, M. S., & Sprenger, R.-U. (2000). Market-based instruments for environmental management: politics and institutions. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.
Arulampalam, W., & Stewart, M. B. (2009). Simplified implementation of the heckman estimator of the dynamic probit model and a comparison with alternative estimators. Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, 71, 659–681. CrossRef
Arundel, A., & Kemp, R. (2009). Measuring eco-innovation. UNU-MERIT Working Paper Series-017.
Ashford, N. A. (1993). Understanding technological responses of industrial firms to environmental problems: implications for government policy. In Environmental strategies for industry: international perspectives in research needs and policy implications (pp. 277–307). Washington, DC: Island Press.
Bai, J. (2013). Fixed-effects dynamic panel models, a factor analytical method. Econometrica, 81, 285–314. CrossRef
Bauermann, K. (2016). German energiewende and the heating market-impact and limits of policy. Energy Policy, 94, 235–246. CrossRef
Beise, M., & Rennings, K. (2005). Lead markets and regulation: A framework for analyzing the international diffusion of environmental innovations. Ecological Economics, 52, 5–17. CrossRef
Bérubé, C., & Mohnen, P. (2009). Are firms that receive r&d subsidies more innovative? Canadian Journal of Economics/Revue canadienne d’économique, 42, 206–225.
Bitat, A. (2016). Environmental regulation and eco-innovation: insights from diffusion of innovations theory. Maghreb Review of Economics and Management, 3, 112–129.
Braun, B. (2008). Environmental issues: inventive life. Progress in Human Geography, 32, 667–679. CrossRef
Calleja, I., & Delgado, L. (2008). European environmental technologies action plan (etap). Journal of Cleaner Production, 16, S181–S183. CrossRef
Calleja, I., Delgado, L., Eder, P., Kroll, A., Lindblom, J., Van Wunnik, C., Wolf, O., Gouarderes, F., & Langendorff, J. (2004). Promoting environmental technologies: sectoral analysis, barriers and measures. IPTS report EUR, 21002. Institute for Prospective Technological Studies, Seville.
Cameron, C., & Trivedi, P. K. (2013). Count panel data. In B. H. Baltagi (Ed.), Oxford handbook of panel data econometrics. New York: Oxford University Press.
Catozzella, A., & Vivarelli, M. (2016). The possible adverse impact of innovation subsidies: some evidence from italy. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 12, 351–368. CrossRef
Clausen, T. H. (2009). Do subsidies have positive impacts on r&d and innovation activities at the firm level? Structural Change and Economic Dynamics, 20, 239–253. CrossRef
Coglianese, C., Nash, J., & Olmstead, T. (2003). Performance-based regulation: prospects and limitations in health, safety, and environmental protection. Administrative Law Review, 705–729.
Cohen, M. A., & Tubb, A. (2015). The impact of environmental regulation on firm and country competitiveness: a meta-analysis of the porter hypothesis. Available at SSRN. http://ssrn.com/abstract=2692919. Accessed 31 May 2017.
Costantini, V., Crespi, F., Martini, C., & Pennacchio, L. (2015). Demand-pull and technology-push public support for eco-innovation: The case of the biofuels sector. Research Policy, 44, 577–595. CrossRef
Dal Bó, E. (2006). Regulatory capture: A review. Oxford Review of Economic Policy, 22, 203–225. CrossRef
Del Río, G. P. (2009). The empirical analysis of the determinants for environmental technological change: A research agenda. Ecological Economics, 68, 861–878. CrossRef
Del Río, P. (2014). On evaluating success in complex policy mixes: the case of renewable energy support schemes. Policy Sciences, 47, 267–287. CrossRef
Del Río, P., Carrillo-Hermosilla, J., & Könnölä, T. (2010). Policy strategies to promote eco-innovation. Journal of Industrial Ecology, 14, 541–557. CrossRef
Di Stefano, G., Gambardella, A., & Verona, G. (2012). Technology push and demand pull perspectives in innovation studies: Current findings and future research directions. Research Policy, 41, 1283–1295. CrossRef
Doran, J., & Ryan, G. (2012). Regulation and firm perception, eco-innovation and firm performance. European Journal of Innovation Management, 15, 421–441. CrossRef
Dosi, G. (1988). Sources, procedures, and microeconomic effects of innovation. Journal of Economic Literature, 26(3), 1120–1171.
Ecorys,. (2011). The role of market-based instruments in achieving a resource efficient economy. Technical Report European Commission: DG Environment.
Edquist, C. (1999). Innovation policy: A systemic approach. Tema: Univ.
Environmental Protection Act (1990). Environmental protection act 1990. London: Her Majesty's Stationary Office.
European Commission (2014). Factsheet: financial instruments in cohesion policy 2014–2020. Brussels: DG REGIOnal Policy. http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/sources/docgener/informat/2014/financial_instruments_en.pdf. Accessed 30 May 2007.
European Environment Agency (2006). EEA report. In Using the market for cost-effective environmental policy: market-based instruments in Europe. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities.
Fiorino, D. J. (2006). The new environmental regulation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Fisher, D. R., & Freudenburg, W. R. (2001). Ecological modernization and its critics: Assessing the past and looking toward the future. Society & Natural Resources, 14, 701–709. CrossRef
Fontana, R., & Guerzoni, M. (2008). Incentives and uncertainty: An empirical analysis of the impact of demand on innovation. Cambridge Journal of Economics, 32, 927–946. CrossRef
Freeman, C. (1982). The economics of industrial innovation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Frondel, M., Horbach, J., & Rennings, K. (2007). End‐of‐pipe or cleaner production? An empirical comparison of environmental innovation decisions across OECD countries. Business Strategy and the Environment, 16(8), 571–584.
Gardiner, D., & Jacobson, L. (2002). Will voluntary programs be sufficient to reduce U.S. greenhouse gas emissions? An analysis of the Bush administration’s global climate change initiative. Environment, 44(8), 27–33.
Godin, B., & Lane, J. P. (2013). Pushes and pulls hi (s) tory of the demand pull model of innovation. Science, Technology & Human Values, 38, 621–654. CrossRef
Griliches, Z. (1957). Hybrid corn: an exploration in the economics of technological change. Econometrica, Journal of the Econometric Society, 25, 501–522.
Guerin, K. et al. (2003). Encouraging quality regulation: Theories and tools. Technical Report New Zealand Treasury.
Hahn, R. W., & Stavins, R. N. (1991). Incentive-based environmental regulation: A new era from an old idea. Ecology LQ, 18, 1.
Heckman, J. J. (1981). The incidental parameters problem and the problem of initial conditions in estimating a discrete time-discrete data stochastic process. In C. F. Manski & D. L. McFadden (Eds.), Structural analysis of discrete data with econometric applications. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Horbach, J., Rammer, C., & Rennings, K. (2012). Determinants of eco-innovations by type of environmental impactthe role of regulatory push/pull, technology push and market pull. Ecological Economics, 78, 112–122. CrossRef
Huber, J. (2008). Pioneer countries and the global diffusion of environmental innovations: Theses from the viewpoint of ecological modernisation theory. Global Environmental Change, 18, 360–367. CrossRef
Hujer, R., & Radić, D. (2005). Evaluating the impacts of subsidies on innovation activities in germany. Scottish Journal of Political Economy, 52, 565–586. CrossRef
Iwulska, A. (2012). Country benchmarks. In I. S. Gill & M. Raiser (Eds.), Golden growth: restoring the lustre of the European economic model. Washington, DC: World Bank Publications.
Jaffe, A. B., & Palmer, K. (1997). Environmental regulation and innovation: A panel data study. Review of Economics and Statistics, 79, 610–619. CrossRef
Jaffe, A. B., & Stavins, R. N. (1995). Dynamic Incentives of Environmental Regulations: The Effects of Alternative Policy Instruments on Technology Diffusion. doi: 10.1006/jeem.1995.1060.
Johnstone, N. (2005). The innovation effects of environmental policy instruments. In J. Horbach (Ed.), Indicator systems for sustainable innovation (pp. 21–41). Heidelberg: Physica-Verlag HD.
Kesidou, E., & Demirel, P. (2012). On the drivers of eco-innovations: Empirical evidence from the uk. Research Policy, 41, 862–870. CrossRef
Krysiak, F. C. (2011). Environmental regulation, technological diversity, and the dynamics of technological change. Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, 35, 528–544. CrossRef
Lah, O. (2009). The climate for change: the conditions for effective climate change policies: a case study on residential home insulation policies in New Zealand and Germany. Wellington: School of Geography, Environment and Earth Sciences.
Lowry, M. N. (2002). Performance-based regulation of utilities. Energy LJ, 23, 399.
Marginson, S. (2007). The public/private divide in higher education: A global revision. Higher Education, 53, 307–333. CrossRef
McWilliams, A., & Siegel, D. (2000). Corporate social responsibility and financial performance: correlation or misspecification? Strategic Management Journal, 21, 603–609. doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1097-0266(200005)21:5<603::AID-SMJ101>3.0.CO;2-3
Mele, C., & Russo-Spena, T. (2015). Eco-innovation practices. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 28, 4–25. CrossRef
Moral-Benito, E. (2013). Likelihood-based estimation of dynamic panels with predetermined regressors. Journal of Business & Economic Statistics, 31, 451–472. CrossRef
Murphy, J., & Gouldson, A. (2000). Environmental policy and industrial innovation: Integrating environment and economy through ecological modernisation. Geoforum, 31, 33–44. CrossRef
Nordhaus, R. R. (2011). Treatment of ccs under ghg regulatory programmes. In I. Havercroft, R. Macrory, & R. Stewart (Eds.), Carbon Capture and Storage: Emerging Legal and Regulatory Issues chapter 5. (pp. 81–91). Oxford: Bloomsbury Publishing. https://books.google.be/books?id=Dol6BAAAQBAJ. Accessed 30 Sept 2016
Nordhaus, R. R., & Danish, K. W. (2005). Assessing the Options for Designing a Mandatory U.S. Greenhouse Gas Reduction Program. Boston College Environmental Affairs Law Review, 32, 97–163. http://search.proquest.com/docview/743475172?accountid=26636$delimiter”026E30F.
OECD (2009). Eco-innovation in industry: enabling green growth. Paris: OECD.
Opschoor, J. B. (1995). Managing the environment: the role of economic instruments. Fuel and Energy Abstracts, 5(36), 373.
Orme, C. (2001). Two-step inference in dynamic non-linear panel data models. Manuscript, School of Economic Studies, University of Manchester.
Palmer, G. (1992). New ways to make international environmental law. The American Journal of International Law, 86(2), 259–283.
Peters, B., & Rammer, C. (2013). Innovation panel surveys in Germany. In Handbook of innovation indicators and measurement (p. 135) Cheltenham and Northhampton: Edward Elgar.
Popp, D., Newell, R. G., & Jaffe, A. B. (2010). Energy, the Environment, and Technological Change. Handbook of the Economics of Innovation, 2, 873–937 CrossRef
Porter, M. (1991). America’s green strategy. Scientific American Magazine, 264, 168. CrossRef
Queensland Government (2006). Guidelines on alternative to prescriptive regulation. Technical Report.
Rabe-Hesketh, S., & Skrondal, A. (2013). Avoiding biased versions of wooldridges simple solution to the initial conditions problem. Economics Letters, 120, 346–349. CrossRef
Rennings, K. (2000). Redefining innovationeco-innovation research and the contribution from ecological economics. Ecological Economics, 32, 319–332. CrossRef
Richter, S., & Johnke, B. (2004). Status of pcdd/f-emission control in germany on the basis of the current legislation and strategies for further action. Chemosphere, 54, 1299–1302. CrossRef
Rosenberg, N. (1976). Perspectives on technology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Rothenberg, S., & Zyglidopoulos, S. (2003). Determinants of environmental innovation adoption in the printing industry. Rochester Institute of Technology, Rochester, USA. http://scholarworks.rit.edu/books/13
Sappington, D. E., Pfeifenberger, J. P., Hanser, P., & Basheda, G. N. (2001). The state of performance-based regulation in the us electric utility industry. The Electricity Journal, 14, 71–79. CrossRef
Schmookler, J. (1962). Economic sources of inventive activity. The Journal of Economic History, 22, 1–20. CrossRef
Schmookler, J. (1966). Invention and economic growth. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Stavins, R. N. (1995). Harnessing market forces to protect the environment. In K. Schwab (Ed.), Overcoming Indifference: Ten Key Challenges in Today’s Changing World: A Survey of Ideas and Proposals for Action on the Threshold of the Twenty-First Century. New York: New York University Press. C-5.
Truffer, B., & Coenen, L. (2012). Environmental innovation and sustainability transitions in regional studies. Regional Studies, 46, 1–21. CrossRef
Wagner, M. (2010). The role of corporate sustainability performance for economic performance: A firm-level analysis of moderation effects. Ecological Economics, 69, 1553–1560. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2010.02.017.
Wagner, M., & Llerena, P. (2011). Eco-innovation through integration, regulation and cooperation: Comparative insights from case studies in three manufacturing sectors. Industry and Innovation, 18, 747–764. CrossRef
Whitten, S., Van Bueren, M., & Collins, D. (2003). An overview of market-based instruments and environmental policy in australia. In AARES Symposium.
Wooldridge, J. M. (2005). Simple solutions to the initial conditions problem in dynamic, nonlinear panel data models with unobserved heterogeneity. Journal of Applied Econometrics, 20, 39–54. CrossRef
Wooldridge, J. M. (2009). Correlated random effects models with unbalanced panels. Manuscript (version July 2009) Michigan State University.
Zarker, K. A., & Kerr, R. L. (2008). Pollution prevention through performance-based initiatives and regulation in the united states. Journal of Cleaner Production, 16, 673–685. CrossRef
ZEW (2014). The Scientific-Use of the Mannheim Innovation Panel. Technical Report Zentrum für Europäische Wirtschaftsforschung.
- Environmental regulation and eco-innovation: the Porter hypothesis refined
- Springer International Publishing
microm, Neuer Inhalt/© Stellmach, Neuer Inhalt/© Maturus, Pluta Logo/© Pluta, Avaloq/© Avaloq Evolution AG, Avaloq/© Avaloq