IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/cir/cirwor/96s-25.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

How Did Ontario Pulp and Paper Producers Respond to Effluent Regulations, 1985-89?

Author

Listed:
  • Joan Fearnley
  • Paul Lanoie
  • Mark Thomas

Abstract

This paper explores the effects of effluent regulatory activity on firm behavior in the pulp and paper industry in Ontario. The model uses instrumental variables to attempt to distinguish between that correlation between emission limits and emissions coming from regulatory capture and that coming from true influence on the part of the regulator. The model also attempts to identify the response channels on the part of the firms: data are available on reported investments in abatement capital and on firms' water consumption, correlated with output. Estimation results suggest that total suspended solids (TSS) limits were more effective than biological oxygen demand (BOD) limits in controlling emissions. Firm responses to TSS limits were in part through modulating output and these responses lowered emissions. In contrast, firms reported investing in abatement technology in response to reductions in BOD limits, but these reported investments had no discernible impact on emissions. Firm responses to court summons, fines, and inquiries were impossible to detect. Possible causes of these results are that penalties for effluent discharge infractions in Ontario during the period studied were too light to influence firm behavior measurably, and that emission limits are set high enough not to be binding for most firms in the sample. Cet article explore les effets de la réglementation des émissions de polluants sur les firmes de l'industrie ontarienne des pâtes et papier. Le modèle utilise des variables instrumentales pour faire la distinction entre les effets liés à la capture de l'agence de réglementation et des effets vraiment propres à l'action du régulateur. Le modèle cherche également à identifier les moyens utilisés par les entreprises pour faire face à la réglementation : des données sont disponibles pour les dépenses en équipement anti-pollution des entreprises et sur la quantité d'eau consommée. Les résultats tendent à démontrer que le contrôle des émissions polluantes se ferait de façon plus efficace par l'imposition d'une limite sur les rejets de matières en suspension (MES) que par une limite sur la demande biochimique en oxygène. Les effets constatés sur la firme d'une limite sur les MES, proviendraient en partie d'une modification dans la production, qui aurait pour effet de diminuer les émissions. Par contre, les investissements en équipement anti-pollution, consentis pour atteindre les objectifs de réduction de DBO, n'ont eu aucun effet sur les émissions. L'impact des poursuites légales, des amendes et des enquêtes est impossible à détecter. Parmi les causes possibles de ces résultats, notons que les sanctions imposées par l'Ontario aux entreprises lors d'une infraction sur l'émission de polluant, durant la période d'étude, étaient trop faibles pour influencer de façon mesurable le comportement des entreprises. Une autre cause pourrait être le fait que les limites d'émissions sont assez élevées pour ne pas être contraignantes pour la plupart des firmes de l'échantillon.

Suggested Citation

  • Joan Fearnley & Paul Lanoie & Mark Thomas, 1996. "How Did Ontario Pulp and Paper Producers Respond to Effluent Regulations, 1985-89?," CIRANO Working Papers 96s-25, CIRANO.
  • Handle: RePEc:cir:cirwor:96s-25
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://cirano.qc.ca/files/publications/96s-25.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Milliman, Scott R. & Prince, Raymond, 1992. "Firm incentives to promote technological change in pollution control: Reply," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 22(3), pages 292-296, May.
    2. Magat, Wesley A & Viscusi, W Kip, 1990. "Effectiveness of the EPA's Regulatory Enforcement: The Case of Industrial Effluent Standards," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 33(2), pages 331-360, October.
    3. Milliman, Scott R. & Prince, Raymond, 1989. "Firm incentives to promote technological change in pollution control," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 17(3), pages 247-265, November.
    4. Laplante, Benoit & Rilstone, Paul, 1996. "Environmental Inspections and Emissions of the Pulp and Paper Industry in Quebec," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 31(1), pages 19-36, July.
    5. Marin, Alan, 1991. "Firm incentives to promote technological change in pollution control: Comment," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 21(3), pages 297-300, November.
    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. Stavins, Robert & Jaffe, Adam & Newell, Richard, 2000. "Technological Change and the Environment," Working Paper Series rwp00-002, Harvard University, John F. Kennedy School of Government.
    2. Adam Jaffe & Richard Newell & Robert Stavins, 2002. "Environmental Policy and Technological Change," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 22(1), pages 41-70, June.
    3. Jaffe, Adam B. & Newell, Richard G. & Stavins, Robert N., 2003. "Chapter 11 Technological change and the environment," Handbook of Environmental Economics, in: K. G. Mäler & J. R. Vincent (ed.), Handbook of Environmental Economics, edition 1, volume 1, chapter 11, pages 461-516, Elsevier.
    4. Revesz, Richard & Stavins, Robert, 2004. "Environmental Law and Policy," Working Paper Series rwp04-023, Harvard University, John F. Kennedy School of Government.
    5. Popp, David & Newell, Richard G. & Jaffe, Adam B., 2010. "Energy, the Environment, and Technological Change," Handbook of the Economics of Innovation, in: Bronwyn H. Hall & Nathan Rosenberg (ed.), Handbook of the Economics of Innovation, edition 1, volume 2, chapter 0, pages 873-937, Elsevier.
    6. Verhoef, Erik T. & Nijkamp, Peter, 1999. "Second-best energy policies for heterogeneous firms," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 21(2), pages 111-134, April.
    7. Zhengxia He & Shichun Xu & Wenxing Shen & Meiling Wang & Cunfang Li, 2019. "Exploring external and internal pressures on the environmental behavior of paper enterprises in China: A qualitative study," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 28(6), pages 951-969, September.
    8. Kjetil Telle, 2004. "Effects of inspections on plants' regulatory and environmental performance - evidence from Norwegian manufacturing industries," Discussion Papers 381, Statistics Norway, Research Department.
    9. Gaoussou Diarra & Sébastien Marchand, 2011. "Environmental Compliance, Corruption and Governance: Theory and Evidence on Forest Stock in Developing Countries," CERDI Working papers halshs-00557677, HAL.
    10. Bowon Kim & Jeong Eun Sim, 2016. "Supply Chain Coordination and Consumer Awareness for Pollution Reduction," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 8(4), pages 1-20, April.
    11. Requate, Till, 1998. "Incentives to innovate under emission taxes and tradeable permits," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 14(1), pages 139-165, February.
    12. Gangadharan, Lata, 2006. "Environmental compliance by firms in the manufacturing sector in Mexico," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 59(4), pages 477-486, October.
    13. Thomas J. Miceli & Kathleen Segerson & Dietrich Earnhart, 2022. "The role of experience in deterring crime: A theory of specific versus general deterrence," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 60(4), pages 1833-1853, October.
    14. Dasgupta, Susmita & Hettige, Hemamala & Wheeler, David, 1998. "What improves environmental performance? evidence from Mexican industry," Policy Research Working Paper Series 1877, The World Bank.
    15. André, Francisco J. & Sokri, Abderrahmane & Zaccour, Georges, 2011. "Public Disclosure Programs vs. traditional approaches for environmental regulation: Green goodwill and the policies of the firm," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 212(1), pages 199-212, July.
    16. Dietrich Earnhart & Lana Friesen, 2021. "Enforcement Federalism: Comparing the Effectiveness of Federal Punishment versus State Punishment," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 78(2), pages 227-255, February.
    17. Nlandu Mamingi & Susmita Dasgupta & Benoit Laplante & Jong Hong, 2008. "Understanding firms’ environmental performance: does news matter?," Environmental Economics and Policy Studies, Springer;Society for Environmental Economics and Policy Studies - SEEPS, vol. 9(2), pages 67-79, June.
    18. Grafton, Quentin R. & Devlin, Rose Anne, 1994. "Les permis d’émission et les charges : efficacité et substituabilité," L'Actualité Economique, Société Canadienne de Science Economique, vol. 70(2), pages 159-176, juin.
    19. Gaoussou Diarra & Sébastien Marchand, 2011. "Does Pervasive Corruption Matter For Firm's Demand for Good Governance in Developing Countries?," CERDI Working papers halshs-00588191, HAL.
    20. Earnhart, Dietrich & Segerson, Kathleen, 2012. "The influence of financial status on the effectiveness of environmental enforcement," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 96(9-10), pages 670-684.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Environment; Regulation; Pulp and Paper; Environnement; réglementation; pâtes et papier;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • Q25 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Renewable Resources and Conservation - - - Water
    • Q28 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Renewable Resources and Conservation - - - Government Policy

    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:cir:cirwor:96s-25. 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: Webmaster (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/ciranca.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.