Strategic Effects and the Porter Hypothesis

André, Francisco J. (2015): Strategic Effects and the Porter Hypothesis.

Abstract

Environmental protection and firms' competitiveness are typically seen as conflicting elements as firms tend to ignore the environmental consequences of their actions and any regulation forcing them to modify their policies can only make them worse-off. Contrarily to this traditional paradigm, the Porter Hypothesis suggests the existence of "low hanging fruits" in the sense that some environmental policies may simultaneously benefit the environment and domestic competitiveness. Our aim is to identify the main theoretical arguments that have been proposed in the literature to support the validity of the Porter Hypothesis and pick the most significant contributions paying special attention to the strategic and international trade aspects. After presenting some general issues and different interpretations of the Porter Hypothesis, we review different theoretical explanations such as the generation of scarcity rents, the use of environmental regulation by national governments as an instrument of strategic trade policy, the existence of externalities in technology adoption, the interaction with output quality competition and the existence of information incompleteness.

• Item Type: MPRA Paper
• Language: English
• Keywords: Porter Hypotesis; Strategic behavior; International trade; Game theory
• Subjects: C - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods > C7 - Game Theory and Bargaining Theory > C72 - Noncooperative Games; D - Microeconomics > D6 - Welfare Economics > D62 - Externalities; Q - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics ; Environmental and Ecological Economics > Q5 - Environmental Economics > Q52 - Pollution Control Adoption and Costs ; Distributional Effects ; Employment Effects; Q - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics ; Environmental and Ecological Economics > Q5 - Environmental Economics > Q55 - Technological Innovation; Q - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics ; Environmental and Ecological Economics > Q5 - Environmental Economics > Q58 - Government Policy

References

Akerlof, G. A. (1970) The market for "lemons": Quality uncertainty and the market mechanism. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 488-500.

Amacher, G.S., E. Koskela, &M. Ollikainen (2004) Environmental quality competition and eco-labelling, Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 47, 284-306.

Ambec, S. & P. Barla (2002) A theoretical foundation of the Porter Hypothesis. Economics Letters 75, 355-360.

Ambec, S. & P. Barla (2006) Can environmental regulations be good for business? An assessment of the Porter Hypothesis. Energy Studies Review 14, 42-62.

Ambec, S., M.A. Cohen, S. Elgie & P. Lanoie (2013) The Porter Hypothesis at 20: can environmental regulation enhance innovation and competitiveness? Review of Environmental Economics and Policy 7, 2-22.

Ambec, S. & P. Lanoie (2008) Does it pay to be green? A systematic overview. The Academy of Management Perspectives 22, 45-62.

André, F.J., P. González & N. Porteiro (2009) Strategic quality competition and the Porter Hypothesis. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 57, 182-194.

André, F. J., A. Sokri & G. Zaccour (2011) Public disclosure programs vs. traditional approaches for environmental regulation: Green goodwill and the policies of the firm. European Journal of Operational Research 212, 199-212.

Brander, J. A. & B.J. Spencer (1985) Export subsidies and international market share rivalry. Journal of international Economics 18, 83-100.

Brännlund, R., T. Lundgren, & T. van der Ploeg (2009) Environmental policy without costs? A review of the Porter Hypothesis. International Review of Environmental and Resource Economics 3, 75-117.

Constantatos, C. & M. Herrmann (2011) Market inertia and the introduction of green products: Can strategic effects justify the Porter Hypothesis? Environmental and Resource Economics 50, 267-284.

Downing, P. B. & L.J. White (1986) Innovation in pollution control. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 13, 18-29.

Ellerman, A.D., F.J. Convery and C. de Perthuis (2010) Pricing Carbon: The European Emissions Trading Scheme. Cambridge University Press. Cambridge, UK.

Ehrhart, K. M., E. C. Hoppe and R. Löschel (2008) Abuse of EU Emissions Trading for Tacit Collusion. Environmental and Resource Economics 41: 347-361.

Farmer, A., J. R. Kahn, J. A. McDonald & R. O’Neill (2001) Rethinking the optimal level of environmental quality: justifications for strict environmental policy. Ecological Economics 36, 461-473.

Farzin, Y. H. (2003) The effects of emissions standards on industry. Journal of regulatory economics 24, 315-327.

Feichtinger, G., R. F. Hartl, P.M. Kort, & V.M. Veliov (2005) Environmental policy, the Porter Hypothesis and the composition of capital: Effects of learning and technological progress. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 50, 434-446.

Fullerton, D. & G.E. Metcalf (2001) Environmental controls, scarcity rents, and preexisting distortions. Journal of Public Economics 80, 249-267.

Gabszewick, J. & J.F. Thisse (1979) Price competition, quality, and income disparities. Journal of Economic Theory 20, 340-359.

Gabel, H. L., & B. Sinclair-Desgagné (1998) The firm, its routines, and the environment, in “The International Yearbook of Environmental and Resource Economics 1998-1999” T. Tietenberg and H. Folmer, Eds. Edward Elgar. 32

Greaker, M. (2003) Strategic environmental policy; eco-dumping or a green strategy. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 45, 692-707.

Greaker, M. (2006) Spillovers in the development of new pollution abatement technology: a new look at the Porter-hypothesis. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 52, 411-420.

Greening, L.A., D.L. Greene & C. Difiglio (2000) Energy efficiency and consumption–the rebound effect–a survey. Energy policy 28, 389-401.

Hart, R. (2004) Growth, environment and innovation–a model with production vintages and environmentally oriented research. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 48, 1078-1098.

Heyes, A. G. & C. Liston-Heyes (1999) Corporate lobbying, regulatory conduct and the Porter Hypothesis. Environmental and Resource Economics 13, 209-218.

Hicks, J. R. (1932) The theory of wages, 1st ed. London: Macmillan.

Hinterman, B. (2011) Market power, permit allocation and efficiency in emission permit markets. Environmental and Resource Economics 49, 327-349.

Jaffe, A. B., & K. Palmer (1997) Environmental regulation and innovation: a panel data study. Review of economics and statistics 79, 610-619.

Jaffe, A. B., S.R. Peterson, P.R. Portney & R.N. Stavins (1995) Environmental regulation and the competitiveness of US manufacturing: what does the evidence tell us? Journal of Economic literature 33, 132-163.

Kennedy, P. (1994) Innovation stochastique et coût de la réglementation environnementale.L’Actualité économique 70, 199-209.

Kriechel, B & T. Ziesemer (2009) The environmental Porter Hypothesis: theory, evidence, and a model of timing of adoption. Economics of Innovation and New Technology 18, 267-294.

Kriström, B. & T. Lundgren (2003) Abatement investments and green goodwill. Applied Economics 35, 1915-7. 33

Lambertini, L. & A. Tampieri (2012) Vertical differentiation in a Cournot industry: The Porter Hypothesis and beyond. Resource and Energy Economics 34, 374-380.

Lombardini-Riipinen, C. (2005) Optimal tax policy under environmental quality competition. Environmental and Resource Economics 32, 317-336.

Macho-Stadler, I. & J.D. Pérez Castrillo (2001) An introduction to the economics of information: Incentives and contracts. Second edition, Oxford University Press, Oxford.

Mason, C. (2006) An economic model of eco-labelling. Environmental Modelling Assessment 11, 131-143.

Milliman, S. R. & R. Prince (1989) Firm incentives to promote technological change in pollution control. Journal of Environmental economics and Management 17, 247-265.

Mohr, R.D. (2002) Technical change, external economies and the Porter Hypothesis. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 43, 158-168.

Mohr, R.D. & S. Saha (2008) Distribution of environmental costs and benefits, additional distortions, and the Porter Hypothesis. Land Economics 84, 689-700.

Newell, R. G., W.A. Pizer & D. Raimi (2013) Carbon markets 15 years after kyoto: Lessons learned, new challenges. The Journal of Economic Perspectives 27, 123-146.

Palmer, K., W.E. Oates & P.R. Portney (1995) Tightening environmental standards: The Benefit-cost or no-cost paradigm. Journal of Economic Perspectives 9, 119-132.

Popp, D. (2005) Uncertain R&D and the Porter Hypothesis. Contributions in Economic Analysis & Policy 4(1).

M. Porter (1990) The Competitive Advantage of Nations, Free Press, New York.

M. Porter (1991) America’s Green Strategy, Scientific American 264, 168.

Porter, M.E. & C. van der Linde (1995) Toward a new conception of the environmentcompetitiveness relationship. Journal of Economic Perspectives 9, 97-118.

Rauscher, M. (1994) On ecological dumping. Oxford economic papers 46, 822-840.

Rege, M. (2000) Strategic policy and environmental quality: Helping the domestic industry to provide credible information. Environmental and Resource Economics 15, 279-296.

Rothfels, J. (2002) Environmental policy under Product Differentiation and Asymmetric Costs: Does Leapfrogging Occur and Is It Worth It?, in L. Marsiliani, M. Rauscher & C.Withagen (Eds.) Environmental Economics and the international Economy, Kluwer Academic Publishers, pp. 99-122.

Shaked, A. & J. Sutton (1982) Relaxing price competition through product differentiation. The Review of Economic Studies 49, 3-13.

Simpson, R. D. & R.L. Bradford III (1996) Taxing variable cost: Environmental regulation as industrial policy. ournal of Environmental Economics and Management 30, 282-300.

Spencer, B. J. & J.A. Brander (1983) International R&D rivalry and industrial strategy. The Review of Economic Studies 50, 707-722.

Tietenberg, T.L. (1998) Disclosure strategies for pollution control. Environmental and Resource Economics 11, 587-602.

Wagner, M. (2004) The Porter Hypothesis revisited: A literature review of theoretical models and empirical tests. Public Economics 0407014, EconWPA.

Xepapadeas, A. & A. de Zeeuw (1999) Environmental policy and competitiveness: the Porter Hypothesis and the composition of capital. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 37, 165-182.