IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/hhs/umnees/0619.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Environmental Regulation and Firm Efficiency: Studying the Porter Hypothesis using a Directional Output Distance Function

Author

Listed:
  • Marklund, Per-Olov

    (Department of Economics, Umeå University)

Abstract

The purpose of this paper is to suggest a procedure to empirically test the Porter hypothesis. This hypothesis argues that environmental regulation not only increases environmental quality, but also brings the polluting producers information that makes them more resource efficient, as well as able to develop new technologies. Specifically, the hypothesis tested is whether there is a positive significant correlation between producers’ technical output efficiency and environmental regulation. Efficiency is first estimated using a methodology where the production technology is represented by a directional output distance function, which credits a simultaneous expansion of market goods and contraction of emissions. Then, by regressing the obtained efficiency scores on an index that approximates environmental regulatory intensity, the Porter hypothesis is explicitly tested. The test procedure is applied on 12 Swedish pulp plants during 1983-1990. The result shows no support for the Porter hypothesis.

Suggested Citation

  • Marklund, Per-Olov, 2003. "Environmental Regulation and Firm Efficiency: Studying the Porter Hypothesis using a Directional Output Distance Function," Umeå Economic Studies 619, Umeå University, Department of Economics.
    • Handle: RePEc:hhs:umnees:0619
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.econ.umu.se/DownloadAsset.action?contentId=62336&languageId=3&assetKey=ues619
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. 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.
    2. Xepapadeas, Anastasios & de Zeeuw, Aart, 1999. "Environmental Policy and Competitiveness: The Porter Hypothesis and the Composition of Capital," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 37(2), pages 165-182, March.
    3. Gollop, Frank M & Roberts, Mark J, 1983. "Environmental Regulations and Productivity Growth: The Case of Fossil-Fueled Electric Power Generation," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 91(4), pages 654-674, August.
    4. Fare, Rolf & Grosskopf, Shawna & Weber, William L., 2006. "Shadow prices and pollution costs in U.S. agriculture," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 56(1), pages 89-103, January.
    5. 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.
    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. Kriechel, Ben & Ziesemer, Thomas, 2003. "The Environmental Porter Hypothesis as a Technology Adoption Problem?," Research Memorandum 011, Maastricht University, Maastricht Economic Research Institute on Innovation and Technology (MERIT).
    2. repec:dgr:umamer:2005008 is not listed on IDEAS
    3. Ben Kriechel & Thomas Ziesemer, 2009. "The environmental Porter hypothesis: theory, evidence, and a model of timing of adoption," Economics of Innovation and New Technology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 18(3), pages 267-294.
    4. Anabel Zárate-Marco & Jaime Vallés-Giménez, 2015. "Environmental tax and productivity in a decentralized context: new findings on the Porter hypothesis," European Journal of Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 40(2), pages 313-339, October.
    5. Vivek Ghosal & Andreas Stephan & Jan F. Weiss, 2019. "Decentralized environmental regulations and plant‐level productivity," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 28(6), pages 998-1011, September.

    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. 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.
    2. Dominique Bianco & Evens Salies, 2017. "The Strong Porter Hypothesis in an Endogenous Growth Model with Satisficing Managers," Economics Bulletin, AccessEcon, vol. 37(4), pages 2641-2654.
    3. Dominique Bianco & Evens Salies, 2017. "The Strong Porter Hypothesis in an Endogenous Growth Model with Satisficing Managers," Post-Print hal-02177939, HAL.
    4. repec:spo:wpmain:info:hdl:2441/vetkngao585gaehs52f2n4fkt is not listed on IDEAS
    5. Fangming Xie & Yali Liu & Mengman Yang, 2023. "Spatial spillover effect of environmental regulation on regional economic growth," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 25(7), pages 7149-7160, July.
    6. 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.
    7. Tilmann Rave & Ursula Triebswetter, 2006. "Economic impacts of environmental regulations," ifo Forschungsberichte, ifo Institute - Leibniz Institute for Economic Research at the University of Munich, number 30, October.
    8. Caroline Orset, 2014. "Innovation and the precautionary principle," Economics of Innovation and New Technology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 23(8), pages 780-801, November.
    9. Rassier, Dylan G. & Earnhart, Dietrich, 2015. "Effects of environmental regulation on actual and expected profitability," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 112(C), pages 129-140.
    10. Caroline Orset, 2017. "Innovation and The Precautionary Principle," Working Papers hal-01500845, HAL.
    11. Hamamoto, Mitsutsugu, 2006. "Environmental regulation and the productivity of Japanese manufacturing industries," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 28(4), pages 299-312, November.
    12. Fabio Iraldo & Francesco Testa & Vlasis Oikonomou & Michela Melis & Marco Frey & Eise Spijker, 2009. "A literature review on the links between environmental regulation and competitiveness," Working Papers 200904, Scuola Superiore Sant'Anna of Pisa, Istituto di Management.
    13. repec:hal:spmain:info:hdl:2441/vetkngao585gaehs52f2n4fkt is not listed on IDEAS
    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. Earnhart, Dietrich & Germeshausen, Robert & von Graevenitz, Kathrine, 2022. "Effects of information-based regulation on financial outcomes: Evidence from the European Union's public emission registry," ZEW Discussion Papers 22-015, ZEW - Leibniz Centre for European Economic Research.
    16. Anabel Zárate-Marco & Jaime Vallés-Giménez, 2015. "Environmental tax and productivity in a decentralized context: new findings on the Porter hypothesis," European Journal of Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 40(2), pages 313-339, October.
    17. Dominique Bianco, 2022. "Does entrepreneurial behaviour matter for the strong Porter hypothesis?," Economics Bulletin, AccessEcon, vol. 42(2), pages 867-876.
    18. Brännlund, Runar & Lundgren, Tommy, 2008. "Environmental policy and profitability - Evidence from Swedish industry," Umeå Economic Studies 750, Umeå University, Department of Economics.
    19. Nikos Chatzistamoulou & George Diagourtas & Kostas Kounetas, 2017. "Do pollution abatement expenditures lead to higher productivity growth? Evidence from Greek manufacturing industries," Environmental Economics and Policy Studies, Springer;Society for Environmental Economics and Policy Studies - SEEPS, vol. 19(1), pages 15-34, January.
    20. repec:spo:wpmain:info:hdl:2441/c6vaci757938qr0fmnuq9kd0e is not listed on IDEAS
    21. 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.
    22. Ward Thomas, 2009. "Do Environmental Regulations Impede Economic Growth? A Case Study of the Metal Finishing Industry in the South Coast Basin of Southern California," Economic Development Quarterly, , vol. 23(4), pages 329-341, November.
    23. Paroma Sanyal, 2007. "The effect of deregulation on environmental research by electric utilities," Journal of Regulatory Economics, Springer, vol. 31(3), pages 335-353, June.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Porter hypothesis; environmental regulation; technical efficiency; parametric directional output distance function;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • C61 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Mathematical Methods; Programming Models; Mathematical and Simulation Modeling - - - Optimization Techniques; Programming Models; Dynamic Analysis
    • D21 - Microeconomics - - Production and Organizations - - - Firm Behavior: Theory
    • D24 - Microeconomics - - Production and Organizations - - - Production; Cost; Capital; Capital, Total Factor, and Multifactor Productivity; Capacity
    • L51 - Industrial Organization - - Regulation and Industrial Policy - - - Economics of Regulation
    • Q53 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Environmental Economics - - - Air Pollution; Water Pollution; Noise; Hazardous Waste; Solid Waste; Recycling

    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:hhs:umnees:0619. 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: David Skog (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/inumuse.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.