Environmental and Resource Economics

, Volume 45, Issue 3, pp 353–377 | Cite as

Does the Porter Hypothesis Explain Expected Future Financial Performance? The Effect of Clean Water Regulation on Chemical Manufacturing Firms

  • Dylan G. Rassier
  • Dietrich Earnhart


Previous research provides opposing theoretical arguments regarding the effect of environmental regulation on financial performance. As one important argument, the Porter hypothesis claims that tighter regulation improves financial performance. This study provides empirical evidence on this debated effect. In particular, we employ panel data analysis to examine the effect of Clean Water Act regulation, as measured by permitted wastewater discharge limits, on expected future financial performance, as measured by Tobin’s q, for publicly owned firms in the chemical manufacturing industries. We find that tighter permitted discharge limits lower Tobin’s q; i.e., more stringent Clean Water Act regulation undermines expected future financial performance. By decomposing Tobin’s q into its constituent components—market value and replacement costs—and estimating each component separately, we find that tighter permitted discharge limits lower both components with a larger impact on market value, which implies that investors revise their expectations of the discounted present value of future profits in response to changes in Clean Water Act regulation.


Chemical industry Firm performance Porter hypothesis Regulated industries Regulation 

JEL Classification

L25 L51 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Aiginger K (1993) Collusion, concentration and profits. Empirica 20(2): 159–173CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Alpay E, Buccola S, Kerkvliet J (2002) Productivity growth and environmental regulation in Mexican and US food manufacturing. Am J Agric Econ 84(4): 887–901CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Ambec S, Barla P (2002) A theoretical foundation of the Porter hypothesis. Econ Lett 75(3): 355–360CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Ambec S, Barla P (2007) Can environmental regulations be good for business? An assessment of the Porter hypothesis. Energy Stud Rev 14(2): 42–62Google Scholar
  5. Ambec S, Barla P (2007) Survol des fondements théoriques de l’hypothèse de Porter. L’Actualité économique 83(3): 299–414Google Scholar
  6. Becker R, Henderson V (2000) Effects of air quality regulations on polluting industries. J Politi Econ 108(2): 379–421CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Berman E, Bui LTM (2001) Environmental regulation and productivity: evidence from oil refineries. Rev Econ Stat 83(3): 498–510CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Berman E, Bui LTM (2001) Environmental regulation and labor demand: evidence from the south coast air basin. J Public Econ 79(2): 265–295CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Brännlund R, Färe R, Grosskopf S (1995) Environmental regulation and profitability: an application to Swedish pulp and paper mills. Environ Resour Econ 6(1): 23–36CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Brunnermeier S, Levinson A (2004) Examining the evidence on environmental regulations and industry location. J Environ Dev 13(1): 6–41CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Business and Company Resource Center© (2004) Thomson Gale, a part of the Thomson CorporationGoogle Scholar
  12. Capon N, Farley JU, Hoenig S (1990) Determinants of financial performance: a meta-analysis. Manag Sci 36(10): 1143–1159CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Chung JH, Pruitt SW (1994) A simple approximation to Tobin’s q. Financ Manag 23(3): 70–74CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. D’Aspremont C, Jacquemin A (1988) Joint R&D ventures: cooperative and non-cooperative R&D in duopoly with spillovers. Am Econ Rev 78(5): 1133–1137Google Scholar
  15. Dean TJ, Brown RL, Stango V (2000) Environmental regulation as a barrier to the formation of small manufacturing establishments: a longitudinal examination. J Environ Econ Manag 40(1): 56–75CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Dufour C, Lanoie P, Patry M (1998) Regulation and productivity. J Prod Anal 9: 233–247CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Earnhart D (2004) Panel data analysis of regulatory factors shaping environmental performance. Rev Econ Stat 86(1): 391–401CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Filbeck G, Gorman RF (2004) The relationship between the environmental and financial performance of public utilities. Environ Resour Econ 29: 137–157CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Gabel L, Sinclair-Desgagne B (1998) The firm, its routines and the environment. In: Tietenberg T, Folmer H (eds) The international yearbook of environmental and resource economics. Edward Elgar, pp 89–118Google Scholar
  20. Gray WB (1987) The cost of regulation: OSHA, EPA, and the productivity slowdown. Am Econ Rev 77(5): 998–1006Google Scholar
  21. Greenstone M (2002) The impacts of environmental regulations on industrial activity: evidence from the 1970 and 1977 Clean Air Act amendments and the census of manufactures. J Polit Econ 110(6): 1175–1219CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hazilla M, Kopp RJ (1990) Social cost of environmental quality regulations: a general equilibrium analysis. J Polit Econ 98(4): 853–873CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hirsch BT, Seaks TG (1993) Functional forms in regression models of Tobin’s q. Rev Econ Stat 75(2): 381–385CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Jaffe AB, Palmer K (1997) Environmental regulation and innovation: a panel data study. Rev Econ Stat 79(4): 610–619CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Jaffe AB, Peterson SR, Portney PR, Stavins RN (1995) Environmental regulation and the competitiveness of US manufacturing: what does the evidence tell us?. J Econ Lit 33(1): 132–163Google Scholar
  26. Jorgenson DW, Wilcoxen PJ (1990) Environmental regulation and US economic growth. Rand J Econ 21(2): 314–340CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Kennedy P (1994) Stochastic innovation and cost of environmental regulation. L’Actualité économique 70(2): 199–209Google Scholar
  28. Khanna M, Damon LA (1999) EPA’s voluntary 33/50 program: impact on toxic releases and economic performance of firms. J Environ Econ Manag 37(1): 1–25CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. King A (1999) Retrieving and transferring embodied data: implications for management of interdependence within organizations. Manag Sci 45(7): 918–935CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. King A (2000) Organizational response to environmental regulation: punctuated change or autogenesis?. Bus Strategy Environ 4(9): 224–238CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. King A, Lenox M (2002) Exploring the locus of profitable pollution reduction. Manag Sci 48(2): 289–299CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Konar S, Cohen MA (2001) Does the market value environmental performance?. Rev Econ Stat 83(2): 281–289CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Lanoie P, Laurent-Lucchetti J, Johnstone N, Ambec S (2007) Environmental policy, innovation and performance: new insights on the Porter hypothesis. HEC Montreal, discussion paper IEA 07-06, Institut d’Économie Appliquée, JuneGoogle Scholar
  34. Lanoie P, Patry M, Lajeunesse R (2008) Environmental regulation and productivity: testing the Porter hypothesis. J Prod Anal 30(2): 121–128CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Levinson A (1996) Environmental regulations and manufacturers’ location choices: evidence from the census of manufactures. J Public Econ 62(1–2): 5–29CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Lindenberg EB, Ross SA (1981) Tobin’s q ratio and industrial organization. J Bus 54(1): 1–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. List JA, Millimet D, Fredricksson P, McHone W (2003) Effects of environmental regulations on manufacturing plant births: evidence from a propensity score matching estimator. Rev Econ Stat 85(4): 944–952CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Managi S, Opaluch JJ, Jin D, Grigalunas TA (2005) Environmental regulations and technological change in the offshore oil and gas industry. Land Econ 81(2): 303–319Google Scholar
  39. McConnell VD, Schwab RM (1990) The impact of environmental regulation on industry location decisions: the motor vehicle industry. Land Econ 66(1): 67–81CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Miller EM (1988) Profit margins and concentration. Atl Econ J 16(1): 96CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Mohr R (2002) Technical change, external economies, and the Porter hypothesis. J Environ Econ Manag 43(1): 158–168CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Palmer K, Oates WE, Portney PR (1995) Tightening environmental standards: the benefit-cost or the no-cost paradigm?. J Econ Perspect 9(4): 119–132Google Scholar
  43. Perez-Quiros G, Timmerman A (2000) Firm size and cyclical variations in stock returns. J Financ 55: 1229–1262CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Popp D (2006) Exploring links between innovation and diffusion: adoption of NOx control technologies at US coal-fired power plants. NBER working paper 12119Google Scholar
  45. Porter ME (1990) The competitive advantage of nations. Free Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  46. Porter ME (1991) Green competitiveness. Sci Am 264: 168CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Porter ME, van der Linde C (1995) Toward a new conception of the environment—competitiveness relationship. J Econ Perspect 9(4): 97–118Google Scholar
  48. Research Insight 7.9© (1993–2003) Standard and Poor’s, a division of the McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc., All rights reservedGoogle Scholar
  49. Russo MV, Fouts PA (1997) A resource-based perspective on corporate environmental performance and profitability. Acad Manag J 40(3): 534–559CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Simpson DR, Bradford RL (1996) Taxing variable cost: environmental regulation as industrial policy. J Environ Econ Manag 30(3): 282–300CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. van der Linde Claas (1993) The micro-economic implications of environmental regulation: a preliminary framework. In: Environmental policies and industrial competitiveness. Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, Paris, pp 69–77Google Scholar
  52. Vogan CR (1996) Pollution abatement and control expenditures, 1972–94. Surv Curr Bus 76(9): 48–67Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.PricewaterhouseCoopersLos AngelesUSA
  2. 2.Department of EconomicsUniversity of KansasLawrenceUSA

Personalised recommendations