IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/eim/papers/h201217.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

The Environmental Regulation Paradox for Clean Tech Ventures

Author

Listed:
  • F. Stam
  • Neil Thompson
  • Andrea Herrmann
  • Marko Hekkert

Abstract

Traditionally, regulations are seen as harmful for the starting and growing of firms. However, strict environmental regulation can also trigger the discovery and introduction of clean technologies, and this innovation might improve the competitiveness of the firm (the so-called Porter hypothesis). This project focuses on the environmental regulation paradox in the context of new venture growth. The key questions are: 1) to what extent do new ventures perceive environmental regulation to be a bottleneck; and 2) how does environmental regulation affect the growth of clean tech ventures? The characteristics of a panel of new ventures are analyzed during their emergence, and in particular the effect of environmental regulation on the subsequent growth of these new ventures. These analyses are also performed on a subsample of firms that is especially liable to environmental regulations, namely clean tech ventures. The empirical evidence shows the paradox of environmental regulation for clean tech ventures: they more often perceive this to be a bottleneck, but environmental regulation also seems to drive their growth. Our interpretation of the environmental regulation paradox is that environmental regulation should be treated as a barrier to growth: entrepreneurs that aim to expand their business in markets that are sensitive to environmental regulation face these regulations as a bottleneck for their activities, but this necessary evil informs them how to successfully expand in these markets giving them a competitive edge over other less well informed firms. Without this hurdle they would probably not be sufficiently informed about the possibilities and impossibilities in these markets. This especially counts for clean tech ventures, but also for the group of non-clean tech ventures that is active on markets liable to environmental regulations. This interpretation does justice to the initial Porter hypothesis - environmental regulation can trigger innovation that may partially or more than fully offset the costs of complying with them – as environmental regulation is both perceived as a cost, but in the end seems to more than fully offset these costs indicated by the growth inducing effect of environmental regulation.

Suggested Citation

  • F. Stam & Neil Thompson & Andrea Herrmann & Marko Hekkert, 2012. "The Environmental Regulation Paradox for Clean Tech Ventures," Scales Research Reports H201217, EIM Business and Policy Research.
    • Handle: RePEc:eim:papers:h201217
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.entrepreneurship-sme.eu/pdf-ez/H201217.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Niels Bosma & Mirjam van Praag & Roy Thurik & Gerrit de Wit, 2004. "The Value of Human and Social Capital Investments for the Business Performance of Startups," Small Business Economics, Springer, vol. 23(3), pages 227-236, October.
    2. Simeon Djankov & Rafael La Porta & Florencio Lopez-de-Silanes & Andrei Shleifer, 2002. "The Regulation of Entry," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 117(1), pages 1-37.
    3. 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.
    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. A. Bonaccorsi & S. Giannangeli, 2010. "One or more growth processes? Evidence from new Italian firms," Small Business Economics, Springer, vol. 35(2), pages 137-152, September.
    6. Kirchhoff, Bruce A. & Phillips, Bruce D., 1988. "The effect of firm formation and growth on job creation in the United States," Journal of Business Venturing, Elsevier, vol. 3(4), pages 261-272.
    7. Paraskevopoulou, Evita, 2012. "Non-technological regulatory effects: Implications for innovation and innovation policy," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 41(6), pages 1058-1071.
    8. Cohen, Boyd & Winn, Monika I., 2007. "Market imperfections, opportunity and sustainable entrepreneurship," Journal of Business Venturing, Elsevier, vol. 22(1), pages 29-49, January.
    9. Adam B. Jaffe et al., 1995. "Environmental Regulation and the Competitiveness of U.S. Manufacturing: What Does the Evidence Tell Us?," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 33(1), pages 132-163, March.
    10. Erik Stam & Roy Thurik & Peter van der Zwan, 2010. "Entrepreneurial exit in real and imagined markets," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press and the Associazione ICC, vol. 19(4), pages 1109-1139, August.
    11. Wayne B. Gray & Ronald J. Shadbegian, 1998. "Environmental Regulation, Investment Timing, and Technology Choice," Journal of Industrial Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 46(2), pages 235-256, June.
    12. Francesca Lotti & Enrico Santarelli & Marco Vivarelli, 2001. "The relationship between size and growth: the case of Italian newborn firms," Applied Economics Letters, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 8(7), pages 451-454.
    13. Erik Stam & Karl Wennberg, 2009. "The roles of R&D in new firm growth," Small Business Economics, Springer, vol. 33(1), pages 77-89, June.
    14. G. Hodgson, 2007. "What Are Institutions?," Voprosy Ekonomiki, NP Voprosy Ekonomiki, issue 8.
    15. Westhead, Paul & Cowling, Marc, 1995. "Employment Change in Independent Owner-Managed High-Technology Firms in Great Britain," Small Business Economics, Springer, vol. 7(2), pages 111-140, April.
    16. Lee, Jaegul & Veloso, Francisco M. & Hounshell, David A., 2011. "Linking induced technological change, and environmental regulation: Evidence from patenting in the U.S. auto industry," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 40(9), pages 1240-1252.
    17. Adam B. Jaffe & Karen Palmer, 1997. "Environmental Regulation And Innovation: A Panel Data Study," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 79(4), pages 610-619, November.
    18. Veronique A.J.M. Schutjens & Egbert Wever, 2000. "Determinants of new firm success," Papers in Regional Science, Springer;Regional Science Association International, vol. 79(2), pages 135-153.
    19. D.B. Audretsch & L. Klomp & E. Santarelli & A.R. Thurik, 2004. "Gibrat's Law: Are the Services Different?," Review of Industrial Organization, Springer;The Industrial Organization Society, vol. 24(3), pages 301-324, May.
    20. Michael Greenstone, 2002. "The Impacts of Environmental Regulations on Industrial Activity: Evidence from the 1970 and 1977 Clean Air Act Amendments and the Census of Manufactures," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 110(6), pages 1175-1219, December.
    21. repec:bla:jindec:v:46:y:1998:i:2:p:235-56 is not listed on IDEAS
    22. Colombo, Massimo G. & Grilli, Luca, 2010. "On growth drivers of high-tech start-ups: Exploring the role of founders' human capital and venture capital," Journal of Business Venturing, Elsevier, vol. 25(6), pages 610-626, November.
    23. Bruderl, Josef & Preisendorfer, Peter, 1998. "Network Support and the Success of Newly Founded Businesses," Small Business Economics, Springer, vol. 10(3), pages 213-225, May.
    24. Chrisman, James J. & McMullan, Ed & Hall, Jeremy, 2005. "The influence of guided preparation on the long-term performance of new ventures," Journal of Business Venturing, Elsevier, vol. 20(6), pages 769-791, November.
    25. Noailly, Joëlle, 2012. "Improving the energy efficiency of buildings: The impact of environmental policy on technological innovation," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 34(3), pages 795-806.
    26. Colombo, Massimo G. & Grilli, Luca, 2005. "Founders' human capital and the growth of new technology-based firms: A competence-based view," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 34(6), pages 795-816, August.
    27. Ms. Era Dabla-Norris & Ms. Gabriela Inchauste, 2007. "Informality and Regulations: What Drives Firm Growth?," IMF Working Papers 2007/112, International Monetary Fund.
    28. Niels Bosma & Veronique Schutjens & Erik Stam, 2009. "Entrepreneurship in European Regions," International Studies in Entrepreneurship, in: Rui Baptista & Joao Leitao (ed.), Public Policies for Fostering Entrepreneurship, chapter 0, pages 59-89, Springer.
    29. Joëlle Noailly & Svetlana Batrakova & Ruslan Lukach, 2010. "Home green home; a case study of inducing energy-efficient innovations in the Dutch building sector," CPB Document 198.rdf, CPB Netherlands Bureau for Economic Policy Analysis.
    30. Audretsch, David B. & Santarelli, Enrico & Vivarelli, Marco, 1999. "Start-up size and industrial dynamics: some evidence from Italian manufacturing," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 17(7), pages 965-983, October.
    31. Vivarelli, Marco & Audretsch, David, 1998. "The Link between the Entry Decision and Post-Entry Performance: Evidence from Italy," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press and the Associazione ICC, vol. 7(3), pages 485-500, September.
    32. Johan Wiklund & Holger Patzelt & Dean Shepherd, 2009. "Building an integrative model of small business growth," Small Business Economics, Springer, vol. 32(4), pages 351-374, April.
    33. Dean, Thomas J. & McMullen, Jeffery S., 2007. "Toward a theory of sustainable entrepreneurship: Reducing environmental degradation through entrepreneurial action," Journal of Business Venturing, Elsevier, vol. 22(1), pages 50-76, January.
    34. Horbach, Jens, 2008. "Determinants of environmental innovation--New evidence from German panel data sources," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(1), pages 163-173, February.
    35. Joëlle Noailly & Svetlana Batrakova & Ruslan Lukach, 2010. "Home green home; a case study of inducing energy-efficient innovations in the Dutch building sector," CPB Document 198, CPB Netherlands Bureau for Economic Policy Analysis.
    36. Dylan Rassier & Dietrich Earnhart, 2010. "Does the Porter Hypothesis Explain Expected Future Financial Performance? The Effect of Clean Water Regulation on Chemical Manufacturing Firms," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 45(3), pages 353-377, March.
    37. Blind, Knut, 2012. "The influence of regulations on innovation: A quantitative assessment for OECD countries," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 41(2), pages 391-400.
    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. Marco Vivarelli, 2013. "Is entrepreneurship necessarily good? Microeconomic evidence from developed and developing countries," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press and the Associazione ICC, vol. 22(6), pages 1453-1495, December.
    2. Marco Vivarelli, 2012. "Entrepreneurship and Post-Entry Performance: the Microeconomic Evidence," DISCE - Quaderni del Dipartimento di Scienze Economiche e Sociali dises1286, Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, Dipartimenti e Istituti di Scienze Economiche (DISCE).
    3. Bu, Maoliang & Qiao, Zhenzi & Liu, Beibei, 2020. "Voluntary environmental regulation and firm innovation in China," Economic Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 89(C), pages 10-18.
    4. 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.
    5. 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.
    6. Rexhäuser, Sascha & Rammer, Christian, 2011. "Unmasking the Porter hypothesis: Environmental innovations and firm-profitability," ZEW Discussion Papers 11-036, ZEW - Leibniz Centre for European Economic Research.
    7. Vivarelli, Marco, 2012. "Drivers of entrepreneurship and post-entry performance : microeconomic evidence from advanced and developing countries," Policy Research Working Paper Series 6245, The World Bank.
    8. Johan Brolund & Robert Lundmark, 2017. "Effect of Environmental Regulation Stringency on the Pulp and Paper Industry," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(12), pages 1-16, December.
    9. Dietrich Earnhart & Dylan G. Rassier, 2016. "“Effective regulatory stringency” and firms’ profitability: the effects of effluent limits and government monitoring," Journal of Regulatory Economics, Springer, vol. 50(2), pages 111-145, October.
    10. Caroline Orset, 2014. "Innovation and the precautionary principle," Economics of Innovation and New Technology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 23(8), pages 780-801, November.
    11. 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).
    12. 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).
    13. Herman, Kyle S. & Xiang, Jun, 2019. "Induced innovation in clean energy technologies from foreign environmental policy stringency?," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 147(C), pages 198-207.
    14. 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.
    15. 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.
    16. Gonseth, Camille & Cadot, Olivier & Mathys, Nicole A. & Thalmann, Philippe, 2015. "Energy-tax changes and competitiveness: The role of adaptive capacity," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 48(C), pages 127-135.
    17. Chakraborty, Pavel & Chakrabarti, Anindya S. & Chatterjee, Chirantan, 2023. "Cross-border environmental regulation and firm labor demand," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 117(C).
    18. Antoine Dechezleprêtre & Misato Sato, 2017. "The Impacts of Environmental Regulations on Competitiveness," Review of Environmental Economics and Policy, Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 11(2), pages 183-206.
    19. Vivarelli, Marco, 2012. "Entrepreneurship in Advanced and Developing Countries: A Microeconomic Perspective," IZA Discussion Papers 6513, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    20. Sascha Rexhäuser & Christian Rammer, 2014. "Environmental Innovations and Firm Profitability: Unmasking the Porter Hypothesis," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 57(1), pages 145-167, January.

    More about this item

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:eim:papers:h201217. 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 EIM (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/eimbpnl.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.