IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/kap/enreec/v50y2011i2p267-284.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Market Inertia and the Introduction of Green Products: Can Strategic Effects Justify the Porter Hypothesis?

Author

Listed:
  • Christos Constantatos
  • Markus Herrmann

Abstract

No abstract is available for this item.

Suggested Citation

  • Christos Constantatos & Markus Herrmann, 2011. "Market Inertia and the Introduction of Green Products: Can Strategic Effects Justify the Porter Hypothesis?," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 50(2), pages 267-284, October.
    • Handle: RePEc:kap:enreec:v:50:y:2011:i:2:p:267-284
    DOI: 10.1007/s10640-011-9471-0
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1007/s10640-011-9471-0
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s10640-011-9471-0?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. Ambec, Stefan & Barla, Philippe, 2005. "Can Environmental Regulations be Good for Business? an Assessment of the Porter Hypothesis," Cahiers de recherche 0505, Université Laval - Département d'économique.
    2. Olivier Bonroy & Christos Constantatos, 2008. "On the use of labels in credence goods markets," Journal of Regulatory Economics, Springer, vol. 33(3), pages 237-252, June.
    3. Amacher, Gregory S. & Koskela, Erkki & Ollikainen, Markku, 2004. "Environmental quality competition and eco-labeling," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 47(2), pages 284-306, March.
    4. C. Lombardini-Riipinen, 2005. "Optimal Tax Policy under Environmental Quality Competition," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 32(3), pages 317-336, November.
    5. François Mirabel & Jacques Percebois & Jean-Christophe Poudou, 2000. "Le financement des missions de service public dans un marché électrique déréglementé : le cas du développement de l’électricité verte," Post-Print hal-01811066, HAL.
    6. Andr, Francisco J. & Gonzlez, Paula & Porteiro, Nicols, 2009. "Strategic quality competition and the Porter Hypothesis," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 57(2), pages 182-194, March.
    7. Barbera, Anthony J. & McConnell, Virginia D., 1990. "The impact of environmental regulations on industry productivity: Direct and indirect effects," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 18(1), pages 50-65, January.
    8. Mahenc, Philippe, 2008. "Signaling the environmental performance of polluting products to green consumers," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 26(1), pages 59-68, January.
    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. Hu, Hui & Qi, Shaozhou & Chen, Yuanzhi, 2023. "Using green technology for a better tomorrow: How enterprises and government utilize the carbon trading system and incentive policies," China Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 78(C).
    2. George van Leeuwen & Pierre Mohnen, 2017. "Revisiting the Porter hypothesis: an empirical analysis of Green innovation for the Netherlands," Economics of Innovation and New Technology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 26(1-2), pages 63-77, February.
    3. Eric Giraud-Héraud & Jean-Pierre Ponssard & Bernard Sinclair Desgagné & Louis-Georges Soler, 2016. "The agro-food industry, public health, and environmental protection: investigating the Porter hypothesis in food regulation," Review of Agricultural, Food and Environmental Studies, Springer, vol. 97(2), pages 127-140, September.
    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. André, Francisco J., 2015. "Strategic Effects and the Porter Hypothesis," MPRA Paper 62237, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    6. Lambertini, Luca & Tampieri, Alessandro, 2012. "Vertical differentiation in a Cournot industry: The Porter hypothesis and beyond," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 34(3), pages 374-380.
    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. Claudia Ranocchia & Luca Lambertini, 2021. "Porter Hypothesis vs Pollution Haven Hypothesis: Can There Be Environmental Policies Getting Two Eggs in One Basket?," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 78(1), pages 177-199, January.
    9. 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.
    10. Flavio Delbono & Luca Lambertini, 2022. "Optimal emission taxation and the Porter hypothesis under Bertrand competition," Annals of Public and Cooperative Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 93(3), pages 755-765, September.
    11. De Xia & Wenhua Chen & Qinglu Gao & Rui Zhang & Yundong Zhang, 2021. "Research on Enterprises’ Intention to Adopt Green Technology Imposed by Environmental Regulations with Perspective of State Ownership," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(3), pages 1-19, January.
    12. 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.
    13. Luca Lambertini & Giuseppe Pignataro & Alessandro Tampieri, 2022. "Competition among coalitions in a cournot industry: a validation of the porter hypothesis," The Japanese Economic Review, Springer, vol. 73(4), pages 679-713, October.
    14. Hovardas, Tasos, 2016. "Two paradoxes with one stone: A critical reading of ecological modernization," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 130(C), pages 1-7.
    15. Elettra Agliardi & Luca Lambertini, 2024. "To Abate, or Not to Abate? The Arising of the Win–Win Solution Under Time Consistent Emission Taxation," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 87(6), pages 1389-1405, June.
    16. Fu, Ke & Li, Yanzhi & Mao, Huiqiang & Miao, Zhaowei, 2023. "Firms’ production and green technology strategies: The role of emission asymmetry and carbon taxes," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 305(3), pages 1100-1112.

    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 & Paul Lanoie, 2007. "When and Why Does It Pay To Be Green?," CIRANO Working Papers 2007s-20, CIRANO.
    2. 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.
    3. Stefan Ambec & Paul Lanoie, 2009. "Performance environnementale et économique de l’entreprise," Économie et Prévision, Programme National Persée, vol. 190(4), pages 71-94.
    4. André, Francisco J., 2015. "Strategic Effects and the Porter Hypothesis," MPRA Paper 62237, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    5. Burani, Nadia & Mantovani, Andrea, 2024. "Environmental policies with green network effect and price discrimination," TSE Working Papers 24-1513, Toulouse School of Economics (TSE), revised Jul 2024.
    6. Jason Walter & Yang-Ming Chang, 2017. "Green certification, heterogeneous producers, and green consumers: a welfare analysis of environmental regulations," Journal of Regulatory Economics, Springer, vol. 52(3), pages 333-361, December.
    7. Andr, Francisco J. & Gonzlez, Paula & Porteiro, Nicols, 2009. "Strategic quality competition and the Porter Hypothesis," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 57(2), pages 182-194, March.
    8. Yokessa, Maïmouna & Marette, Stéphan, 2019. "A Review of Eco-labels and their Economic Impact," International Review of Environmental and Resource Economics, now publishers, vol. 13(1-2), pages 119-163, April.
    9. Mahenc, Philippe & Podesta, Marion, 2012. "The monopolist is not the best environmentalist’s best friend: An example," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 115(3), pages 379-382.
    10. L. Lambertini & A. Tampieri, 2012. "On the Emergence of Overcompliance with Endogenous Environmental Standards and Patronising Consumers," Working Papers wp847, Dipartimento Scienze Economiche, Universita' di Bologna.
    11. Barry, I. & Bonroy, O. & Garella, P.G., 2015. "On taxes and subsidies with private eco-labeling," Working Papers 2015-09, Grenoble Applied Economics Laboratory (GAEL).
    12. Lambertini, Luca & Orsini, Raimondello & Palestini, Arsen, 2017. "On the instability of the R&D portfolio in a dynamic monopoly. Or, one cannot get two eggs in one basket," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 193(C), pages 703-712.
    13. Hend Ghazzai & R Lahmandi-Ayed, 2018. "Ecolabels: Is More Information Better?," Working Papers hal-01877934, HAL.
    14. Fleckinger, Pierre & Glachant, Matthieu, 2010. "The organization of extended producer responsibility in waste policy with product differentiation," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 59(1), pages 57-66, January.
    15. Marco A. Marini & Ornella Tarola & Jacques-François Thisse, 2020. "Is Environmentalism the Right Strategy to Decarbonize the World?," Working Papers 2020.31, Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei.
    16. Yi Wang & Zhanguo Zhu & Feng Chu, 2017. "Organic vs. Non-Organic Food Products: Credence and Price Competition," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(4), pages 1-23, April.
    17. Kurtyka, Oliwia & Mahenc, Philippe, 2011. "The switching effect of environmental taxation within Bertrand differentiated duopoly," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 62(2), pages 267-277, September.
    18. Ana Espinola-Arredondo & Felix Munoz-Garcia, 2012. "An Excessive Development of Green Products," Working Papers 2012-5, School of Economic Sciences, Washington State University.
    19. Lambertini, Luca & Tampieri, Alessandro, 2012. "Do minimum quality standards bite in polluting industries?," Research in Economics, Elsevier, vol. 66(2), pages 184-194.
    20. Constantine Manasakis & Evangelos Mitrokostas & Emmanuel Petrakis, 2013. "Certification of corporate social responsibility activities in oligopolistic markets," Canadian Journal of Economics/Revue canadienne d'économique, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 46(1), pages 282-309, February.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Porter hypothesis; Environmental regulation; Differentiated products; Coordination; L13; Q50;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • L13 - Industrial Organization - - Market Structure, Firm Strategy, and Market Performance - - - Oligopoly and Other Imperfect Markets
    • Q50 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Environmental Economics - - - General

    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:kap:enreec:v:50:y:2011:i:2:p:267-284. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.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.