IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/ejores/v216y2012i3p668-678.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Data envelopment analysis for environmental assessment: Comparison between public and private ownership in petroleum industry

Author

Listed:
  • Sueyoshi, Toshiyuki
  • Goto, Mika

Abstract

Environmental assessment recently becomes a major policy issue in the world. This study discusses how to apply Data Envelopment Analysis (DEA) for environmental assessment. An important feature of the DEA environmental assessment is that it needs to classify outputs into desirable (good) and undesirable (bad) outputs because private and public entities often produce not only desirable outputs but also undesirable outputs as a result of their production activities. This study proposes the three types of unification for DEA environmental assessment by using non-radial DEA models. The first unification considers both an increase and a decrease in the input vector along with a decrease in the direction vector of undesirable outputs. This type of unification measures “unified efficiency”. The second unification considers a decrease in an input vector along with a decrease in the vector of undesirable outputs. This type of unification is referred to as “natural disposability” and measures “unified efficiency under natural disposability”. The third unification considers an increase in an input vector but a decrease in the vector of undesirable outputs. This type of unification is referred to as “managerial disposability” and measures “unified efficiency under managerial disposability”. All the unifications increase the vector of desirable outputs. To document their practical implications, this study has applied the proposed approach to compare the performance of national oil firms with that of international oil firms. This study identifies two important findings on the petroleum industry. One of the two findings is that national oil companies under public ownership outperform international oil companies under private ownership in terms of unified (operational and environmental) efficiency and unified efficiency under natural disposability. However, the performance of international oil companies exhibits an increasing trend in unified efficiency. The other finding is that national oil companies need to satisfy the environmental standard of its own country while international oil companies need to satisfy the international standard that is more restricted than the national standards. As a consequence, international oil companies outperform national oil companies in terms of unified efficiency under managerial disposability.

Suggested Citation

  • Sueyoshi, Toshiyuki & Goto, Mika, 2012. "Data envelopment analysis for environmental assessment: Comparison between public and private ownership in petroleum industry," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 216(3), pages 668-678.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:ejores:v:216:y:2012:i:3:p:668-678
    DOI: 10.1016/j.ejor.2011.07.046
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0377221711006783
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.ejor.2011.07.046?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Karen Palmer & Wallace E. Oates & Paul R. Portney & Karen Palmer & Wallace E. Oates & Paul R. Portney, 2004. "Tightening Environmental Standards: The Benefit-Cost or the No-Cost Paradigm?," Chapters, in: Environmental Policy and Fiscal Federalism, chapter 3, pages 53-66, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    2. Timo Kuosmanen, 2005. "Weak Disposability in Nonparametric Production Analysis with Undesirable Outputs," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 87(4), pages 1077-1082.
    3. Kumar, Surender, 2006. "Environmentally sensitive productivity growth: A global analysis using Malmquist-Luenberger index," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 56(2), pages 280-293, February.
    4. Arnoud W. A. Boot & Radhakrishnan Gopalan & Anjan V. Thakor, 2006. "The Entrepreneur's Choice between Private and Public Ownership," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 61(2), pages 803-836, April.
    5. Sueyoshi, Toshiyuki & Sekitani, Kazuyuki, 2007. "Computational strategy for Russell measure in DEA: Second-order cone programming," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 180(1), pages 459-471, July.
    6. Yang, Hongliang & Pollitt, Michael, 2009. "Incorporating both undesirable outputs and uncontrollable variables into DEA: The performance of Chinese coal-fired power plants," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 197(3), pages 1095-1105, September.
    7. Sueyoshi, Toshiyuki & Goto, Mika, 2010. "Should the US clean air act include CO2 emission control?: Examination by data envelopment analysis," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(10), pages 5902-5911, October.
    8. Triantis, Konstantinos & Otis, Paul, 2004. "Dominance-based measurement of productive and environmental performance for manufacturing," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 154(2), pages 447-464, April.
    9. Sueyoshi, Toshiyuki & Goto, Mika, 2010. "Measurement of a linkage among environmental, operational, and financial performance in Japanese manufacturing firms: A use of Data Envelopment Analysis with strong complementary slackness condition," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 207(3), pages 1742-1753, December.
    10. repec:bla:jfinan:v:43:y:1988:i:1:p:41-59 is not listed on IDEAS
    11. Zhou, P. & Ang, B.W. & Poh, K.L., 2008. "A survey of data envelopment analysis in energy and environmental studies," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 189(1), pages 1-18, August.
    12. Sueyoshi, Toshiyuki & Goto, Mika & Ueno, Takahiro, 2010. "Performance analysis of US coal-fired power plants by measuring three DEA efficiencies," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(4), pages 1675-1688, April.
    13. Fare, Rolf, et al, 1989. "Multilateral Productivity Comparisons When Some Outputs Are Undesirable: A Nonparametric Approach," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 71(1), pages 90-98, February.
    14. Podinovski, Victor V. & Kuosmanen, Timo, 2011. "Modelling weak disposability in data envelopment analysis under relaxed convexity assumptions," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 211(3), pages 577-585, June.
    15. Glover, Fred & Sueyoshi, Toshiyuki, 2009. "Contributions of Professor William W. Cooper in Operations Research and Management Science," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 197(1), pages 1-16, August.
    16. Sueyoshi, Toshiyuki & Goto, Mika, 2011. "Measurement of Returns to Scale and Damages to Scale for DEA-based operational and environmental assessment: How to manage desirable (good) and undesirable (bad) outputs?," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 211(1), pages 76-89, May.
    17. Michael E. Porter & Claas van der Linde, 1995. "Toward a New Conception of the Environment-Competitiveness Relationship," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 9(4), pages 97-118, Fall.
    18. Sueyoshi, Toshiyuki & Goto, Mika, 2012. "Returns to scale and damages to scale under natural and managerial disposability: Strategy, efficiency and competitiveness of petroleum firms," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 34(3), pages 645-662.
    19. Sueyoshi, Toshiyuki & Goto, Mika, 2011. "DEA approach for unified efficiency measurement: Assessment of Japanese fossil fuel power generation," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 33(2), pages 292-303, March.
    20. Emrouznejad, Ali & Parker, Barnett R. & Tavares, Gabriel, 2008. "Evaluation of research in efficiency and productivity: A survey and analysis of the first 30 years of scholarly literature in DEA," Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 42(3), pages 151-157, September.
    21. Korhonen, Pekka J. & Luptacik, Mikulas, 2004. "Eco-efficiency analysis of power plants: An extension of data envelopment analysis," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 154(2), pages 437-446, April.
    22. Pasurka, Carl Jr., 2006. "Decomposing electric power plant emissions within a joint production framework," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 28(1), pages 26-43, January.
    23. Sueyoshi, Toshiyuki & Goto, Mika, 2011. "Methodological comparison between two unified (operational and environmental) efficiency measurements for environmental assessment," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 210(3), pages 684-693, May.
    24. Yang, Hongliang & Pollitt, Michael, 2010. "The necessity of distinguishing weak and strong disposability among undesirable outputs in DEA: Environmental performance of Chinese coal-fired power plants," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(8), pages 4440-4444, August.
    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. Sueyoshi, Toshiyuki & Goto, Mika, 2012. "Environmental assessment by DEA radial measurement: U.S. coal-fired power plants in ISO (Independent System Operator) and RTO (Regional Transmission Organization)," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 34(3), pages 663-676.
    2. Sueyoshi, Toshiyuki & Goto, Mika, 2012. "Weak and strong disposability vs. natural and managerial disposability in DEA environmental assessment: Comparison between Japanese electric power industry and manufacturing industries," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 34(3), pages 686-699.
    3. Sueyoshi, Toshiyuki & Goto, Mika, 2012. "Returns to Scale, Damages to Scale, Marginal Rate of Transformation and Rate of Substitution in DEA Environmental Assessment," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 34(4), pages 905-917.
    4. Sueyoshi, Toshiyuki & Goto, Mika, 2012. "Returns to scale and damages to scale on U.S. fossil fuel power plants: Radial and non-radial approaches for DEA environmental assessment," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 34(6), pages 2240-2259.
    5. Sueyoshi, Toshiyuki & Goto, Mika, 2012. "Returns to Scale and Damages to Scale with Strong Complementary Slackness Conditions in DEA Assessment: Japanese Corporate Effort on Environment Protection," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 34(5), pages 1422-1434.
    6. Sueyoshi, Toshiyuki & Goto, Mika, 2013. "A comparative study among fossil fuel power plants in PJM and California ISO by DEA environmental assessment," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 40(C), pages 130-145.
    7. Sueyoshi, Toshiyuki & Goto, Mika, 2012. "DEA radial and non-radial models for unified efficiency under natural and managerial disposability: Theoretical extension by strong complementary slackness conditions," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 34(3), pages 700-713.
    8. Sueyoshi, Toshiyuki & Yuan, Yan & Goto, Mika, 2017. "A literature study for DEA applied to energy and environment," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 62(C), pages 104-124.
    9. Sueyoshi, Toshiyuki & Goto, Mika, 2012. "DEA radial measurement for environmental assessment and planning: Desirable procedures to evaluate fossil fuel power plants," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 41(C), pages 422-432.
    10. Sueyoshi, Toshiyuki & Goto, Mika, 2012. "DEA environmental assessment of coal fired power plants: Methodological comparison between radial and non-radial models," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 34(6), pages 1854-1863.
    11. Sueyoshi, Toshiyuki & Goto, Mika & Sugiyama, Manabu, 2013. "DEA window analysis for environmental assessment in a dynamic time shift: Performance assessment of U.S. coal-fired power plants," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 40(C), pages 845-857.
    12. Sueyoshi, Toshiyuki & Goto, Mika, 2015. "DEA environmental assessment in time horizon: Radial approach for Malmquist index measurement on petroleum companies," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 51(C), pages 329-345.
    13. Sueyoshi, Toshiyuki & Goto, Mika, 2012. "Returns to scale and damages to scale under natural and managerial disposability: Strategy, efficiency and competitiveness of petroleum firms," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 34(3), pages 645-662.
    14. Sueyoshi, Toshiyuki & Goto, Mika, 2013. "DEA environmental assessment in a time horizon: Malmquist index on fuel mix, electricity and CO2 of industrial nations," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 40(C), pages 370-382.
    15. Sueyoshi, Toshiyuki & Goto, Mika, 2015. "Environmental assessment on coal-fired power plants in U.S. north-east region by DEA non-radial measurement," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 50(C), pages 125-139.
    16. Sueyoshi, Toshiyuki & Goto, Mika, 2014. "Investment strategy for sustainable society by development of regional economies and prevention of industrial pollutions in Japanese manufacturing sectors," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 42(C), pages 299-312.
    17. Jeanneaux, Philippe & Latruffe, Laure, 2016. "Modelling pollution-generating technologies in performance benchmarking: Recent developments, limits and future prospects in the nonparametric frameworkAuthor-Name: Dakpo, K. Hervé," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 250(2), pages 347-359.
    18. Sueyoshi, Toshiyuki & Goto, Mika, 2011. "Methodological comparison between two unified (operational and environmental) efficiency measurements for environmental assessment," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 210(3), pages 684-693, May.
    19. Sueyoshi, Toshiyuki & Goto, Mika, 2013. "Returns to scale vs. damages to scale in data envelopment analysis: An impact of U.S. clean air act on coal-fired power plants," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 41(2), pages 164-175.
    20. Wang, Derek & Li, Shanling & Sueyoshi, Toshiyuki, 2014. "DEA environmental assessment on U.S. Industrial sectors: Investment for improvement in operational and environmental performance to attain corporate sustainability," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 45(C), pages 254-267.

    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:eee:ejores:v:216:y:2012:i:3:p:668-678. 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: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/eor .

    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.