IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v12y2020i1p352-d304240.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Nonlinear Causal Relationship Between Environmental Regulation and Technological Innovation—Evidence Based on the Generalized Propensity Score Matching Method

Author

Listed:
  • Guan-Yu Zhang

    (School of Statistics and Mathematics, Central University of Finance and Economics, Beijing 100081, China)

  • Rong Guan

    (School of Statistics and Mathematics, Central University of Finance and Economics, Beijing 100081, China)

  • Hui-Juan Wang

    (School of Statistics and Mathematics, Central University of Finance and Economics, Beijing 100081, China)

Abstract

The existing research on testing Porter’s hypothesis has not considered the selective bias in the sample when establishing a model. However, the selective bias is likely to cause instability of estimation results and reduce the reference value of conclusions. This article, based on individual enterprises in the China Industrial Enterprise Database, aims to verify the selective bias existing in previous research. Then, using the generalized propensity score matching method, a frontier method in the field of causal inference, we re-examined the causal relationship between environmental regulation and two types of technological innovation, weakened endogenous and reverse causal effects, and obtained a more complete and accurate dynamic impact of environmental regulation on the level of technological innovation for enterprises. The main conclusions of this paper are as follows: (1) The influence of environmental regulation on the level of process innovation has two dimensions: time and intensity, and the causal relationship between these dimensions changes from an N shape to an inversed-U shape over time. (2) The influence of environmental regulation on product innovation levels only includes the intensity dimension, and the two produce a U shape. (3) Process innovation and product innovation, to a certain extent, are reflected in the intriguing situation that they cannot gain and lose at the same time. (4) Light industries have a lower tolerance of environmental regulation than heavy industries, and they are more likely to be stimulated by environmental regulation. The conclusions of this paper can provide valuable advice to governments in relation to the formulation of environmental policies and laws.

Suggested Citation

  • Guan-Yu Zhang & Rong Guan & Hui-Juan Wang, 2020. "The Nonlinear Causal Relationship Between Environmental Regulation and Technological Innovation—Evidence Based on the Generalized Propensity Score Matching Method," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(1), pages 1-14, January.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:12:y:2020:i:1:p:352-:d:304240
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/12/1/352/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/12/1/352/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Samuel Adomako & Joseph Amankwah‐Amoah & Albert Danso & Renata Konadu & Samuel Owusu‐Agyei, 2019. "Environmental sustainability orientation and performance of family and nonfamily firms," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 28(6), pages 1250-1259, September.
    2. Paul Lanoie & Michel Patry & Richard Lajeunesse, 2008. "Environmental regulation and productivity: testing the porter hypothesis," Journal of Productivity Analysis, Springer, vol. 30(2), pages 121-128, October.
    3. 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.
    4. James J. Heckman & Edward Vytlacil, 2005. "Structural Equations, Treatment Effects, and Econometric Policy Evaluation," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 73(3), pages 669-738, May.
    5. 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, September.
    6. Klaus Rennings & Christian Rammer, 2011. "The Impact of Regulation-Driven Environmental Innovation on Innovation Success and Firm Performance," Industry and Innovation, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 18(3), pages 255-283.
    7. Johnstone, Nick & Managi, Shunsuke & Rodríguez, Miguel Cárdenas & Haščič, Ivan & Fujii, Hidemichi & Souchier, Martin, 2017. "Environmental policy design, innovation and efficiency gains in electricity generation," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 63(C), pages 106-115.
    8. Kneller, Richard & Manderson, Edward, 2012. "Environmental regulations and innovation activity in UK manufacturing industries," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 34(2), pages 211-235.
    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. Jingjing Qian & Chao Chen & Yun Zhong, 2022. "Environmental Regulation and Sustainable Growth of Enterprise Value: Mediating Effect Analysis Based on Technological Innovation," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(21), pages 1-16, October.

    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. Wang, Yan & Shen, Neng, 2016. "Environmental regulation and environmental productivity: The case of China," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 62(C), pages 758-766.
    2. 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.
    3. Lorena D’Agostino, 2015. "How MNEs respond to environmental regulation: integrating the Porter hypothesis and the pollution haven hypothesis," Economia Politica: Journal of Analytical and Institutional Economics, Springer;Fondazione Edison, vol. 32(2), pages 245-269, August.
    4. Teemu Makkonen & Sari Repka, 2016. "The innovation inducement impact of environmental regulations on maritime transport: a literature review," International Journal of Innovation and Sustainable Development, Inderscience Enterprises Ltd, vol. 10(1), pages 69-86.
    5. Martínez-Zarzoso, Inmaculada & Bengochea-Morancho, Aurelia & Morales-Lage, Rafael, 2019. "Does environmental policy stringency foster innovation and productivity in OECD countries?," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 134(C).
    6. Thanh Tam Nguyen-Huu & Khac Minh Nguyen & Quoc Tran-Nam, 2022. "The role of environmental practices and innovation in total factor productivity convergence -Evidence from small-and medium-sized manufacturing enterprises in Vietnam," Post-Print hal-04248191, HAL.
    7. Zhang, Yijun & Song, Yi, 2022. "Tax rebates, technological innovation and sustainable development: Evidence from Chinese micro-level data," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 176(C).
    8. Zhou, Di & Qiu, Yuan & Wang, Mingzhe, 2021. "Does environmental regulation promote enterprise profitability? Evidence from the implementation of China's newly revised Environmental Protection Law," Economic Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 102(C).
    9. Mian Yang & Yining Yuan & Fuxia Yang & Dalia Patino-Echeverri, 2021. "Effects of environmental regulation on firm entry and exit and China’s industrial productivity: a new perspective on the Porter Hypothesis," Environmental Economics and Policy Studies, Springer;Society for Environmental Economics and Policy Studies - SEEPS, vol. 23(4), pages 915-944, October.
    10. Chun Lin & Gengrui Cui & Yingjie Sun, 2023. "Labor allocation: How environmental regulation promotes industrial structure," Managerial and Decision Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 44(4), pages 1995-2003, June.
    11. 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.
    12. Antonietti, Roberto & Marzucchi, Alberto, 2014. "Green tangible investment strategies and export performance: A firm-level investigation," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 108(C), pages 150-161.
    13. 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.
    14. Vitaliy Roud & Thomas Wolfgang Thurner, 2018. "The Influence of State‐Ownership on Eco‐Innovations in Russian Manufacturing Firms," Journal of Industrial Ecology, Yale University, vol. 22(5), pages 1213-1227, October.
    15. Zhang, Yijun & Li, Xiaoping & Song, Yi & Jiang, Feitao, 2021. "Can green industrial policy improve total factor productivity? Firm-level evidence from China," Structural Change and Economic Dynamics, Elsevier, vol. 59(C), pages 51-62.
    16. R. De Santis & P. Esposito & C. Jona Lasinio, 2021. "Environmental regulation and productivity growth: Main policy challenges," International Economics, CEPII research center, issue 165, pages 264-277.
    17. Lu, Yunguo & Zhang, Lin, 2022. "National mitigation policy and the competitiveness of Chinese firms," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 109(C).
    18. Phu Nguyen-Van & Tuyen Tiet & Quoc Tran-Nam, 2024. "Synergy in environmental compliance, innovation and export on SMEs' growth," Working Papers hal-04441426, HAL.
    19. Alessandra Colombelli & Jackie Krafft & Francesco Quatraro, 2021. "Firms’ growth, green gazelles and eco-innovation: evidence from a sample of European firms," Small Business Economics, Springer, vol. 56(4), pages 1721-1738, April.
    20. Pedro Naso & Yi Huang Author Name: Tim Swanson, 2017. "The Porter Hypothesis Goes to China: Spatial Development, Environmental Regulation and Productivity," CIES Research Paper series 53-2017, Centre for International Environmental Studies, The Graduate Institute.

    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:gam:jsusta:v:12:y:2020:i:1:p:352-:d:304240. 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: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    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.