Environmental and Resource Economics

, Volume 50, Issue 2, pp 227–242 | Cite as

Corporate Environmental Management and Environmental Efficiency

  • Madhu Khanna
  • Surender Kumar


This paper examines the potential of environmental management systems (EMSs) to provide opportunities for reducing toxic releases cost-effectively and increasing environmental efficiency of a sample of S&P 500 firms. We use directional distance function to estimate firm-specific environmental efficiency. A truncated regression model with bootstraping is then estimated to analyze the determinants of the environmental efficiency of firms. The analysis shows that the comprehensiveness of an EMS, pressures to reduce toxic releases cost-effectively, innovativeness of firms and the threat of costly regulations in the future lead firms to become more environmental efficient. Regression results indicate that increasing the comprehensiveness of EMS by adopting one additional practice benefits the average firm by approximately US$ 35.5 million by increasing its environmental efficiency by 0.3%.


Environmental management systems Environmental efficiency Directional distance function Toxic releases 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Anton WR, Deltas G, Khanna M (2004) Incentives for environmental self-regulation and implications for environmental performance. J Environ Econ Manag 48(1): 632–654CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Boyd GA, McClelland J (1999) The impact of environmental constraints on productivity improvements and energy efficiency: an integrated paper and steel plants. J Environ Econ Manag 38: 121–146CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Christmann P (2000) Effects of “Best Practices” of environmental management on cost advantage: the role of complementary assets. Acad Manag J 43(4): 663–680CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Chung Y, Färe R, Grosskopf S (1997) Productivity and undesirable outputs: a directional distance function approach. J Environ Manag 51: 229–240CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Coglianese C, Nash J (2001) Environmental management systems and the new policy agenda. In: Coglianese C, Nash J (eds) Regulating from the inside: can environmental management systems achieve policy goals?. Resources for the Future, Washington D.CGoogle Scholar
  6. Dasgupta S, Hettige H, Wheeler D (2000) What improves environmental compliance? Evidence from Mexican industry. J Environ Econ Manag 39: 39–66CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Färe R, Grosskopf S, Lovell CAK, Pasurka C (1989) Multilateral productivity comparisons when some outputs are undesirable. Rev Econ Stat 71: 90–98CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Färe R, Grosskopf S, Tyteca D (1996) An activity analysis model of the environmental performance of firms-application to fossil-fuel-fired electric utilities. Ecol Econ 18: 161–175CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Färe R, Grosskopf S, Noh D, Weber W (2005) Characteristics of a polluting technology: theory and practice. J Econ 126: 469–492Google Scholar
  10. Florida R, Davison D (2001) Why do firms adopt advanced environmental practices (and do they make a difference)?. In: Coglianese C, Nash J (eds) Regulating from the inside: can environmental management systems achieve policy goals?. Resources for the Future, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  11. Fung A, O’Rourke D (2000) Reinventing environmental regulation from the grassroots up: explaining and expanding the success of the toxics release inventory. Environ Manag 25(2): 115–127CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Haillu A, Veeman TS (2001) Alternative methods for environmentally adjusted productivity analysis. Agric Econ 25: 211–218CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Helland E (1998) The enforcement of pollution control laws: inspections, violations and self-reporting. Rev Econ Stat 80: 141–153CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Henriques I, Sadorsky P (1996) The determinants of an environmentally responsible firm: an empirical approach. J Environ Econ Manag 30: 381–395CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hetemäki L (1996) Essays on the impact of pollution control on a firm: a distance function approach. Helsinki: The Finnish Forest Research Institute, Research papers 609Google Scholar
  16. Hughes A, Yaisawarng S (2004) Sensivity and dimensionality tests of DEA efficiency scores. Eur J Oper Res 154: 410–422CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Khanna M (2001) Non-mandatory approaches to environmental protection. J Econ Surv 15: 291–324Google Scholar
  18. Khanna M, Damon LA (1999) EPA’s voluntary 33/50 program: impact on toxic release and economic performance on firms. J Environ Econ Manag 37: 1–25CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Khanna M, Anton WRQ (2002a) Corporate environmental management: regulatory and market based pressures. Land Econ 78: 539–558CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Khanna M, Anton WRQ (2002b) What is driving corporate environmentalism: opportunity or threat. Corp Environ Strateg 9(4): 409–417CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. King A, Lenox M (2000) Industry self-regulation without sanctions: the chemical industry’s responsible care program. Acad Manag J 43: 698–716CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Konar S, Cohen MA (2001) Does the market value environmental performance. Rev Econ Stat 83: 281–289CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Nash J, Ehrenfeld J (2001) Factors that shape EMS outcomes in firms. In: Coglianese C, Nash J (eds) Regulating from the inside: can environmental management systems achieve policy goals?. Resources for the Future, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  24. New York Times (1991) The nation’s polluters—Who emits, what and where. October, 13, p F10Google Scholar
  25. Reinhard S, Lovell CAK, Thijssen G (1999) Econometric estimation of technical and environmental efficiency: an application to Dutch dairy farms. Am J Agric Econ 81: 44–60CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Simar L, Wilson P (1999) Of course we can bootstrap DEA scores! But does it mean anything? Logic trumps wishful thinking. J Prod Anal 11: 93–97CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Simar L, Wilson P (2000) Statistical inference in nonparametric frontier models: the state of the art. J Prod Anal 13: 49–78CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Simar L, Wilson P (2007) Estimation and inference in two stage, semi-parametric models of productive efficiency. J Econ 136: 31–64Google Scholar
  29. Tyteca DJ (1997) Linear programming models for the measurement of environmental performance of firms- concepts and empirical results. J Prod Anal 8: 183–197CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Wooldridge JW (2002) Econometric analysis of cross section and panel data. The MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  31. Yaiswarng S, Klein JD (1994) The effects of sulfur dioxide controls on productivity change in the US electric power industry. Rev Econ Stat 76: 447–460CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Zaim O, Taskin F (2000) A Kuznets curve in environmental efficiency: an application on OECD countries. Environ Resource Econ 17: 21–36CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Zofio JL, Prieto AM (2001) Environmental efficiency and regulatory standards: the case of CO2 emissions from OECD countries. Res Energy Econ 23: 63–83CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Agricultural and Consumer EconomicsUniversity of Illinois at Urbana-ChampaignUrbanaUSA
  2. 2.Department of Business Economics South CampusUniversity of Delhi, Benito Juarez MargNew DelhiIndia

Personalised recommendations