Advertisement

Environmental Economics and Policy Studies

, Volume 9, Issue 3, pp 145–166 | Cite as

Environmental policy and economies of scope in facility-level environmental practices

  • Nick Johnstone
  • Julien Labonne
  • Célinc Thevenot
Article

Abstract

In order to abate pollution, manufacturing facilities can either change their production processes (CPP) or introduce end-of-pipe technologies (EOP). The decision to undertake CPP rather than EOP is a reflection of the existence of economies of scope between production of the facility’s conventional output and abatement of pollution. While this is determined by sectoral technological opportunities, facility size and other factors, environmental management practices, and public policy also play a role. Our results suggest that flexible instruments are more likely to result in CPP. We also provide insights on the role of environmental management, with the mainstreaming of environmental management within the firm leading to more integrated abatement strategies.

Key words

Economies of scope Environmental policy Environmental management Technological innovation 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Altumban Y, Molyneux P (1996) Economies of scale and scope in European banking. Applied Financial Economics 6:367–375CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Anton WRQ, Deltas G, Khanna M (2004) Incentives for environmental self-regulation and implications for environmental performance. Journal of Environmental Economics and Literature 48:632–654Google Scholar
  3. Bailey E, Friedlaender A (1982) Market structure and multiproduct industries. Journal of Economic Literature 20:1024–1048Google Scholar
  4. Banker R, Chang H, Majumdar S (1998) Economies of scope in the US telecommunications industry. Information Economics and Policy 10:253–272CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Baumol W, Panzar J, Willig R (1988) Contestable markets and the theory of industry structure. Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  6. Becker G (1962) Investment in human capital: a theoretical analysis. Journal of Political Economy 70:S9–S49CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Berman E, Bui L (2001) Environmental regulation and productivity: evidence from oil refineries. Review of Economics and Statistics 83:498–510CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Crespi F (2004) Notes on the determinants of innovation: a multiperspective analysis. Note di Lavoro Delia Fondazione Eni Enrico MatteiGoogle Scholar
  9. Daft R (1978) A dual-core model of organizational innovation. Academy of Management Journal 21:193–210CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Dundal H, Lewis D (1995) Departmental productivity in American universities: economies of scale and scope. Economics of Education Review 14:119–144CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Frondel M, Horbach J, Rennings K (2007) End-of-pipe or clean production? An empirical comparison of environmental innovation decisions across OECD countries. In: Johnstone N (ed) Environmental policy and corporate behavior. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, UK, pp 174–212Google Scholar
  12. Gabel HL, Sinclair-Desgagne B (1998) The firm, its routines and the environment. In: Folmer H, Tietenberg T (eds) International yearbook of environmental and resource economics 1998/1999. A survey of current issues. Edward Elgar, London, pp 89–118Google Scholar
  13. Gollop F, Roberts M (1983) Environmental regulations and productivity growth: the case of fossil-fueled electric power geneneration. Journal of Political Economy 91:654–674CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Gray W, Shadbegian R (2003) Plant vintage, technology, and environmental regulation. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 46:384–402CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Johnstone N (ed.) (2007) Environmental Policy and Corporate Behaviour (Cheltenham: Edward Elgar)Google Scholar
  16. Morgenstern R, Pizer W, Shih J (1998) The cost of environmental protection. Resource for the Future Discussion Paper 98-36Google Scholar
  17. Morgenstern R, Pizer W, Shih J (2001) The cost of environmental protection. Review of Economics and Statistics 83:732–738CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Munari F, Sobrero M (2003) Corporate governance and innovation. In: Munari F, Garrone P, Sobrero M (eds) Corporate governance, market structure and innovation. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, UKGoogle Scholar
  19. Nonaka I, Toyama R (2002) A firm as a dialectical being: towards a dynamic theory of a firm. Industrial and Corporate Change 11:995–1009CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Panzar J, Willig R (1975) Economies of scale and economies of scope in multi-output production. Bell Laboratories Economic Discussion Paper No. 33Google Scholar
  21. Panzar J, Willig R (1981) Economies of scope. American Economic Review 71:68–272Google Scholar
  22. Porter M, van der Linde C (1995) Toward a new conception of the environment-competitiveness relationship. Journal of Economic Perspectives 9:97–118CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Wooldridge J (2002) Econometric analysis of cross section and panel data. MIT Press, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Japan 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Nick Johnstone
    • 1
  • Julien Labonne
    • 2
  • Célinc Thevenot
    • 3
  1. 1.Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD)Paris, Cedex 16France
  2. 2.World BankWashington, DCUSA
  3. 3.Department of EmploymentParis, Cedex 15France

Personalised recommendations