Factors and Contingencies for the “It Pays to Be Green Hypothesis”. The European Union’s Emissions Trading System (EU ETS) and Financial Crisis as Contexts
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Economic Consequences of Environmental Proactivity: The Resource-Based View Perspective
3. The Moderating Effect of External Situational Factors: A Contingent Theory Approach
3.1. The EU Emission Trading System (EU ETS)
3.2. The Financial Crisis
4. Research Framework
5. Results
5.1. Effect of Environmental Proactivity on Economic Performance
5.2. Analysis of the Moderating Effect of the Contingent Variables
6. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Hart, S.L. A Natural Resource-based view of the firm. Acad. Manag. Rev. 1995, 20, 874–907. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hart, S.L.; Ahuja, G. Does it pay to be green? An empirical examination of the relationship between emission reduction and firm performance. Bus. Strategy Environ. 1996, 5, 30–37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Russo, M.V.; Fouts, P. A Resource-based Perspective on corporate environmental performance and profitability. Acad. Manag. J. 1997, 40, 534–559. [Google Scholar]
- Judge, J.; Douglas, T. Performance implications of incorporating natural environmental issues into the strategic planning process: An empirical assessment. J. Manag. Stud. 1998, 35, 241–262. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sharma, S.; Vredenburg, H. Proactive corporate environmental strategy and the development of competitively valuable organizational capabilities. Strateg. Manag. J. 1998, 19, 729–753. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hart, S.L.; Dowell, G. A Natural-Resource-based View of the Firm fifteen years after. J. Manag. 2011, 37, 1464–1479. [Google Scholar]
- Dowell, G.; Hart, S.; Yeung, B. Do corporate global environmental standards create or destroy market value? Manag. Sci. 2000, 46, 1059–1074. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- King, A.; Lenox, M. Does it really pay to be green? J. Ind. Ecol. 2001, 5, 105–116. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Konar, S.; Cohen, M.A. Does the market value environmental performance? Rev. Econ. Stat. 2001, 83, 281–289. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Guenster, N.; Derwall, J.; Bauer, R.; Koedijk, K. The economic value of corporate eco-efficiency. Eur. Financ. Manag. 2011, 17, 679–704. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cañón-de-Francia, J.; Garcés-Ayerbe, C.; Ramírez-Alesón, M. Are more innovative firms less vulnerable to new environmental regulation? Environ. Resour. Econ. 2007, 36, 295–311. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Walls, J.L.; Phan, P.; Berrone, P. An Assessment of the Construct Validity of Environmental Strategy Measures; Ross School of Business Working Paper Series; University of Michigan: Michigan, MI, USA, 2008; p. 1105. [Google Scholar]
- Bosworth, W.; Clemens, B. Does it pay to be environmentally responsible? Toxic releases and financial performance. J. Strateg. Innov. Sustain. 2011, 7, 115–121. [Google Scholar]
- Nakamura, E. Does environmental investment really contribute to firm performance? An empirical analysis using Japanese firms. Eurasian Bus. Rev. 2011, 1, 91–111. [Google Scholar]
- Wang, K.W.; Lu, W.M.; Wang, S.W. The impact of environmental expenditures on performance in the U.S. chemical industry. J. Clean. Prod. 2014, 64, 447–456. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Filbeck, G.; Gorman, R.F. The relationship between the environmental and financial performance of public utilities. Environ. Resour. Econ. 2004, 29, 137–157. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Elsayed, K.; Paton, D. The impact of environmental performance on firm performance: Static and dynamic panel data evidence. Struct. Chang. Econ. Dyn. 2005, 16, 395–412. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Telle, K. It pays to be green: A premature conclusion? Environ. Resour. Econ. 2006, 35, 195–220. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ziegler, A.; Schröder, M.; Rennings, K. The effect of environmental and social performance on the stock performance of European corporations. Environ. Resour. Econ. 2007, 37, 661–680. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cañón-de-Francia, J.; Garcés-Ayerbe, C. ISO 14001 environmental certification: A sign valued by the market? Environ. Resour. Econ. 2009, 44, 245–262. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wagner, M. The role of corporate sustainability performance for economic performance: A firm-level analysis of moderation effects. Ecol. Econ. 2010, 69, 1553–1560. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Lanoie, P.; Laurent-Lucchetti, J.; Johnstone, N.; Ambec, S. Environmental policy, innovation and performance: New insights on the Porter Hypothesis. J. Econ. Manag. Strategy 2011, 20, 803–842. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Klassen, R.; Whybark, D. The impact of environmental technologies on manufacturing performance. Acad. Manag. J. 1999, 42, 599–615. [Google Scholar]
- Christmann, P. Effects of best practices of environmental management on cost advantage: The role of complementary assets. Acad. Manag. J. 2000, 43, 663–680. [Google Scholar]
- King, A.; Lenox, M. Exploring the locus of profitable pollution reduction. Manag. Sci. 2002, 48, 289–299. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gonzalez-Benito, J.; Gonzalez-Benito, O. Environmental proactivity and business performance: An empirical analysis. Omega 2005, 33, 1–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Aragón-Correa, J.A.; Hurtado-Torres, N.; Sharma, S.; García-Morales, V.J. Environmental strategy and performance in small firms: A Resource-based perspective. J. Environ. Manag. 2008, 86, 88–103. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sambasivan, M.; Bah, S.; Jo-Ann, H. Making the case for operating “Green”: Impact of environmental proactivity on multiple performance outcomes of Malaysian firms. J. Clean. Prod. 2013, 42, 69–82. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ghisetti, C.; Rennings, K. Environmental innovations and profitability: How does it pay to be green? An empirical analysis on the german innovation survey. J. Clean. Prod. 2014, 75, 106–117. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Aragón-Correa, J.A.; Sharma, S. A contingent Resource-based view of proactive corporate environmental strategy. Acad. Manag. Rev. 2003, 28, 71–88. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Aguilera-Caracuel, J.; Ortiz-de-Mandojana, N. Green innovation and financial performance: An institutional approach. Organ. Environ. 2013, 26, 365–385. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ambec, S.; Lanoie, P. Does it pay to be green? A systematic overview. Acad. Manag. Perspect. 2008, 22, 45–62. [Google Scholar]
- Busch, T.; Hoffmann, V.H. How hot is your bottom line? Linking carbon and financial performance. Bus. Soc. 2011, 50, 233–265. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Trumpp, C.; Guenther, T. Too Little or too much? Exploring U-shaped Relationships between Corporate Environmental Performance and Corporate Financial Performance. Bus. Strategy Environ. 2015, 26, 49–68. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Porter, M. America’s green strategy. Sci. Am. 1991, 4, 168. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Porter, M.; Van der Linde, C. Green and competitive. Harv. Bus. Rev. 1995, 73, 120–134. [Google Scholar]
- Porter, M.; Van der Linde, C. Toward a new conception of the environment-competitiveness relationship. J. Econ. Perspect. 1995, 9, 97–118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Esty, D.C.; Porter, M.E. Industrial ecology and competitiveness. J. Ind. Ecol. 1998, 2, 35–43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bansal, P. Evolving sustainability: A longitudinal study of corporate sustainable development. Strateg. Manag. J. 2005, 26, 197–218. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Berry, M.; Rondinelli, D. Proactive corporate environmental management: A new industrial revolution. Acad. Manag. Exec. 1998, 12, 38–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Murillo, J.; Garcés, C.; Rivera, P. Why do patterns of environmental response differ? A stakeholder pressure approach. Strateg. Manag. J. 2008, 29, 1225–1240. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fujii, H.; Iwata, K.; Kaneko, S.; Managi, S. Corporate environmental and economic performances of Japanese manufacturing firms: Empirical study for sustainable development. Bus. Strategy Environ. 2013, 22, 187–201. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Aragón-Correa, J.A. Strategic proactivity and firm approach to the natural environment. Acad. Manag. J. 1998, 41, 556–567. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Henriques, I.; Sadorsky, P. The relationship between environmental commitment and managerial perceptions of stakeholder importance. Acad. Manag. J. 1999, 42, 87–99. [Google Scholar]
- Lawrence, P.R.; Lorsch, J.W. Organization and Environment: Managing Differentiation and Integration; Harvard University Press: Boston, MA, USA, 1967. [Google Scholar]
- Miller, D.; Friesen, P. Strategy-Making and Environment: The third link. Strateg. Manag. J. 1983, 4, 221–235. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Clemens, B. Economic incentives and small firms: Does it pay to be green? J. Bus. Res. 2006, 59, 492–500. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Primc, K.; Čater, T. Environmental proactivity and firm performance: A fuzzy-set analysis. Manag. Decis. 2015, 53, 648–667. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Moreno, C.E.; Reyes, J.F. The value of proactive environmental strategy: An empirical evaluation of the contingent approach to dynamic capabilities. Cuad. Adm. 2013, 26, 87–118. [Google Scholar]
- Zeng, S.; Nan, X.; Liu, C.; Chen, J. The response of the Beijing carbon emissions allowance price (BJC) to macroeconomic and energy price indices. Energy Policy 2017, 106, 111–121. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fischer, C. Project-based mechanisms for emissions reductions: Balancing trade–offs with baselines. Energy Policy 2005, 33, 1807–1823. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cadez, S.; Czerny, A. Carbon management strategies in manufacturing companies: An exploratory note. J. East. Eur. Manag. Stud. 2010, 15, 348–360. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Porter, M.E.; Reinhardt, F.L. Grist: A strategic approach to climate. Harv. Bus. Rev. 2007, 85, 22–26. [Google Scholar]
- Cainelli, G.; Mazzanti, M.; Zoboli, R. Environmental performance, manufacturing sectors and firm growth: Structural factors and dynamic relationships. Environ. Econ. Policy Stud. 2013, 15, 367–387. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gilli, M.; Mancinelli, S.; Mazzanti, M. Innovation complementarity and environmental productivity effects: Reality or delusion? Evidence from the EU. Ecol. Econ. 2014, 103, 56–67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Sun, M.; Wang, Y.; Shi, L.; Jaromír Klemeš, J. Uncovering energy use, carbon emissions and environmental burdens of pulp and paper industry: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2018, 92, 823–833. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Li, M.; Mi, Z.; Coffman, D.; Wei, Y. Assessing the policy impacts on non-ferrous metals industry’s CO2 reduction: Evidence from China. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 192, 252–261. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zeng, S.; Jiang, C.; Ma, C.; Su, B. Investment Efficiency of the New Energy Industry in China. Energy Econ. 2018, 70, 536–544. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Filippetti, A.; Archibugi, D. Innovations in time of crisis; national systems of innovation, structure and demand. Res. Policy 2011, 40, 179–192. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Paunov, C. The global crisis and firms’ investments in innovation. Res. Policy 2012, 41, 24–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Archibugi, D.; Filippetti, A.; Frenz, M. Economic crisis and innovation: Is destruction prevailing over accumulation? Res. Policy 2013, 42, 303–314. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Milic, T. Innovation Management in times of economic crisis. Manag. J. Theory Prac. Manag. 2013, 66, 81–88. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cheney, G.; Mcmillan, J.J. Organizational rhetoric and the practice of criticism. J. Appl. Commun. Res. 1990, 18, 93–114. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Evans, A.; Tzavara, D. Corporate Social responsibility strategies in the light of the financial crisis: The case of Milan-based global companies. Eur. J. Int. Manag. 2012, 6, 154–174. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Beltrán-Esteve, M.; Picazo-Tadeo, A.J. Assesing environmental performance in the European Union: Eco-innovation versus catching up. Energy Policy 2017, 104, 240–252. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pakes, A.; Schankeman, M. The rate of obsolescence of patents, research gestation lags, and the private rate of return of research resource. In R&D, Patents and Productivity; Griliches, Z., Ed.; The University of Chicago Press: Chicago, IL, USA, 1984. [Google Scholar]
- Hirschey, M.; Weygandt, J. Amortization policy for advertinsing and research and development expenditures. J. Acc. Res. 1985, 23, 326–335. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Henderson, R.; Cockburn, I. Racing to invest? The dynamics of competition in ethical drug discovery. J. Econ. Manag. Strategy 1994, 3, 481–519. [Google Scholar]
- Schumpeter, J. Theory of Economic Development; Oxford University Press: New York, NY, USA, 1961. [Google Scholar]
- Hitt, M.; Hoskisson, R.E.; Ireland, R.D.; Harrison, J.S. Effects of acquisitions on R&D inputs and outputs. Acad. Manag. J. 1991, 34, 693–706. [Google Scholar]
- McGuire, J.B.; Sundgren, A.; Schneeweis, T. Corporate social responsibility and firm financial performance. Acad. Manag. J. 1988, 31, 854–872. [Google Scholar]
- Arellano, M. Panel Data Econometrics; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 2003. [Google Scholar]
- Mundlak, Y. On the pooling of Time Series and Cross Section Data. Econometrica 1978, 46, 69–85. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hoffmann, V.H. EU ETS and investment decisions: The case of the German electricity industry. Eur. Manag. J. 2007, 25, 464–474. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cames, M. Emissions Trading and Innovation in the German Electricity Industry. Ph.D. Thesis, Technische University, Berlin, Germany, 2010. [Google Scholar]
- Rogge, K.S.; Hoffmann, V.H. The impact of the EU ETS on the sectoral innovation system for power generation technologies-Findings for Germany. Energy Policy 2010, 38, 7639–7652. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Schmidt, T.; Schneider, M.; Rogge, K.; Schuetz, M.; Hoffmann, V. The effects of climate policy on the rate and direction of innovation: A survey of the EU ETS and the electricity sector. Environ. Innov. Soc. Trans. 2012, 2, 23–48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gasbarro, F.; Rizzi, F.; Frey, M. The mutual influence of Environmental Management Systems and the EU ETS: Findings for the Italian pulp and paper industry. Eur. Manag. J. 2013, 31, 16–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Industrial Sector | No. Firms | No. Obs. |
---|---|---|
Oil and energy | 7 | 56 |
Minerals, metals and processing | 5 | 40 |
Mechanical, electrical and electronic equipment | 6 | 48 |
Construction | 3 | 24 |
Cement | 2 | 16 |
Chemical and paper | 6 | 48 |
Pharmaceutical products and biotechnology | 5 | 40 |
Food and beverages | 6 | 48 |
Textile and footwear | 2 | 16 |
TOTAL | 42 | 336 |
Variables | Description | Mean | SD | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Tobin’s q | Market value of firm/replacement cost of tangible assets | 1.853 | 1.055 | 1.000 | |||
Environmental Proactivity Index (EPI) | (environmental technology capital (ETC) accumulated by the firm in the last 5 years/size)—mean environmental investment effort (EIE) of the sector | −0.004 | 0.028 | 0.109 | 1.000 | ||
Dummy crisis | Dummy = 1 for each crisis years (2009–2012), or 0 for each year before the crisis (2005–2008) | 0.500 | 0.500 | −0.267 | 0.064 | 1.000 | |
Dummy ETS | Dummy = 1 for EU ETS firms or 0 otherwise | 0.452 | 0.498 | −0.185 | −0.106 | 0.000 | 1.000 |
Independent Variables | DEPENDENT VARIABLE: Tobin’s q | |||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Model 1 (One-Way) | Model 1 (Two-Way) | Model 2 (One-Way) | Model 2 (Two-Way) | Model 3 1 (One-Way) | ||||||
Fixed | Random | Fixed | Random | Fixed | Random | Fixed | Random | Fixed | Random | |
Constant | 1.873 (0.000) | 1.872 (0.000) | 1.523 (0.000) | 1.522 (0.000) | 1.873 (0.000) | 2.037 (0.000) | 1.523 (0.000) | 1.683 (0.000) | 2.173 (0.000) | 2.171 (0.000) |
Environmental Proactivity Index (EPI) | 4.454 ** (0.041) | 4.371 ** (0.031) | 6.110 *** (0.001) | 5.897 *** (0.001) | 4.454 ** (0.041) | 4.227 ** (0.037) | 6.110 *** (0.001) | 5.789 *** (0.001) | 6.119 *** (0.002) | 5.876 *** (0.002) |
Dummy ETS firms | - | −0.365 (0.148) | - | −0.356 (0.159) | ||||||
Dummy crisis | −0.586 *** (0.000) | −0.585 *** (0.000) | ||||||||
Time effects D2005 | 0.651 *** | 0.651 *** | 0.651 *** | 0.651 *** | ||||||
D2006 | 0.944 *** | 0.943 *** | 0.944 *** | 0.943 *** | ||||||
D2007 | 0.903 *** | 0.901 *** | 0.903 *** | 0.901 *** | ||||||
D2008 | 0.100 | 0.099 | 0.100 | 0.098 | ||||||
D2009 | 0.107 | 0.107 | 0.107 | 0.107 | ||||||
D2010 | 0.147 | 0.146 | 0.147 | 0.146 | ||||||
D2011 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | −0.000 | ||||||
No. observations | 336 | 336 | 336 | 336 | 336 | 336 | 336 | 336 | 336 | 336 |
R-squared | 0.014 | 0.014 | 0.333 | 0.333 | 0.014 | 0.014 | 0.333 | 0.333 | 0.203 | 0.203 |
Wald χ 2 | 4.65 (0.03) | 143.73 (0.00) | 6.75 (0.03) | 145.64 (0.00) | 74.86 (0.00) | |||||
F statistic | 10.51 (0.00) | 15.20 (0.00) | 10.51 (0.00) | 15.20 (0.00) | 12.98 (0.00) | |||||
Breusch–Pagan (χ2) (OLS vs. random) | 339.67 (0.00) | 481.25 (0.00) | 320.94 (0.00) | 460.63 (0.00) | 415.40 (0.00) | |||||
Hausman test (χ2) (random vs. fixed) | 0.01 (0.91) | 0.15 (0.70) | 0.09 (0.76) | 0.33 (0.56) | 0.14 (0.93) | |||||
Mundlak test (χ2) | 0.02 (0.90) | 0.23 (0.63) | 0.18 (0.67) | 0.94 (0.33) | 0.23 (0.63) |
Independent Variables | DEPENDENT VARIABLE: Tobin’s q | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Model 4 (One-Way) | Model 4 (Two-Way) | Model 5 (One-Way) | ||||
Fixed | Random | Fixed | Random | Fixed | Random | |
Constant | 1.870 (0.000) | 2.060 (0.000) | 1.535 (0.000) | 1.708 (0.000) | 2.178 (0.000) | 2.178 (0.000) |
Environmental Proactivity Index (EPI) | 19.168*** (0.000) | 18.499 *** (0.000) | 12.537 *** (0.001) | 12.415 *** (0.001) | 6.981 *** (0.001) | 6.979 *** (0.000) |
Dummy ETS firms | - | −0.419 (0.101) | - | −0.382 (0.134) | ||
Dummy crisis | −0.598 ***(0.000) | −0.600 ***(0.000) | ||||
Interactions | ||||||
EPI x dummy ETS firms | −19.080 *** (0.000) | −18.230 *** (0.000) | −8.454 * (0.056) | −8.599 ** (0.042) | ||
EPI x dummy crisis | −3.659 (0.215) | −4.303 (0.138) | ||||
Time effects | ||||||
D2005 | 0.630 *** | 0.630 *** | ||||
D2006 | 0.909 *** | 0.907 *** | ||||
D2007 | 0.867 *** | 0.864 *** | ||||
D2008 | 0.084 | 0.082 | ||||
D2009 | 0.104 | 0.103 | ||||
D2010 | 0.143 | 0.143 | ||||
D2011 | 0.005 | 0.005 | ||||
No. observations | 336 | 336 | 336 | 336 | 336 | 336 |
R-squared | 0.060 | 0.060 | 0.342 | 0.341 | 0.207 | 0.207 |
Wald χ 2 | 21.24 (0.02) | 21.24 (0.02) | 77.04 (0.00) | |||
F statistic | 11.07 (0.00) | 15.31 (0.00) | 12.69 (0.00) | |||
Breusch–Pagan (χ2) (OLS vs. random) | 334.79 (0.00) | 463.35 (0.00) | 401.36 (0.00) | |||
Hausman test (χ2) (random vs. fixed) | 0.33 (0.84) | 0.17 (0.91) | 1.92 (0.59) | |||
Mundlak test (χ2) | 1.59 (0.45) | 0.72 (0.69) | 7.54 (0.02) |
© 2019 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Cañón-de-Francia, J.; Garcés-Ayerbe, C. Factors and Contingencies for the “It Pays to Be Green Hypothesis”. The European Union’s Emissions Trading System (EU ETS) and Financial Crisis as Contexts. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2019, 16, 2988. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph16162988
Cañón-de-Francia J, Garcés-Ayerbe C. Factors and Contingencies for the “It Pays to Be Green Hypothesis”. The European Union’s Emissions Trading System (EU ETS) and Financial Crisis as Contexts. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2019; 16(16):2988. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph16162988
Chicago/Turabian StyleCañón-de-Francia, Joaquín, and Concepión Garcés-Ayerbe. 2019. "Factors and Contingencies for the “It Pays to Be Green Hypothesis”. The European Union’s Emissions Trading System (EU ETS) and Financial Crisis as Contexts" International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 16, no. 16: 2988. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph16162988