Environmental and Resource Economics

, Volume 60, Issue 1, pp 99–124 | Cite as

Sectors Under Scrutiny: Evaluation of Indicators to Assess the Risk of Carbon Leakage in the UK and Germany

  • Misato Sato
  • Karsten Neuhoff
  • Verena Graichen
  • Katja Schumacher
  • Felix Matthes


One of the central debates surrounding the design of the European Union Emissions Trading Scheme is the approach to address carbon leakage concerns. Correctly identifying the economic activities exposed to the risk of carbon leakage represents the first step in mitigating the risk effectively. This paper assesses the robustness of the quantitative assessment criteria used by the European Commission for Phase 3. For example we apply the criteria to data for UK and Germany and compare the results with the Commissions’ assessment conducted at the aggregated EU level. This reveals that sectors’ exposure risk to carbon leakage can vary across different Member States due to differences in production processes, technologies and fuel mix; process emissions; recycling rate differences; product mix differences; sector classification, statistical boundaries, activity allocation differences; and finally difference in data quality. Overall, we find that relative carbon intensity of sectors, measured as cost increase relative to gross value added, provides a robust metric. The analysis also highlights the importance of using high quality and disaggregated data for this assessment.


Emissions trading Carbon leakage Emissions leakage Trade effects  Cost exposure 

JEL Classification

Q58 Q54 H23 F13 F18 H87 


  1. Abrell J, Faye AN, Zachmann G (2011) Assessing the impact of the EU ETS using firm level data. Bruegel, Brussels.
  2. BERR (2006) Detailed UK energy statistics (DUKES).
  3. BERR (2007) Energy statistics publication, UK energy consumption, energy consumption tables: industrial energy consumption tables, URN No: 07/455.
  4. Branger F, Quirion P (2013) Understanding the impacts and limitations of the current instrument mix in detail: industrial sector. Cecilia 2050 Optimal EU, Climate Policy FP7 ProjectGoogle Scholar
  5. Carbon Trust, The (2004) The European emissions trading scheme: implications for inducstrial competitiveness, The Carbon TrustGoogle Scholar
  6. Carbon Trust, The (2005) The UK climate change programme: potential evolution for the business and public sector, The Carbon TrustGoogle Scholar
  7. Chernyavs’ka L, Gulli F (2008) Marginal CO2 pass-through under imperfect competition in power markets. Ecol Econ 68(1–2):408–421CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Citigroup (2008) Carbon pollution reduction scheme—impacts reviewed for ASX100 companies and more. Thematic Investing Focus, Australia, 22 July 2008Google Scholar
  9. Clò S (2010) Grandfathering, auctioning and carbon leakage: assessing the inconsistencies of the new ETS directive. Energy Policy 38(5):2420–2430CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Costantini V, Mazzanti M (2012) On the green and innovative side of trade competitiveness? The impact of environmental policies and innovation on EU exports. Res Policy 41(1):132–153CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Cummins M, O’Shea P, Lyons K (2012) A unified analysis of emissions and energy market interactions across the EU. Working paperGoogle Scholar
  12. de Bruyn S, Markowska A, Nelissen D (2010a) Will the energy intensive industry profit from the EU ETS under Phase 3? Delft: CE Delft, 2010Google Scholar
  13. de Bruyn S, Markowska A, Femke D, Bles M (2010b) Does the energy intensive industry obtain windfall profits through the eu ets? An econometric analysis for products from the refineries, iron and steel and chemical sectors. CE Delft reportGoogle Scholar
  14. De Bruyn S, Nelissen D, Koopman M (2013) Impact of recent developments in theEU ETS on the list of sectors deemed to be exposed to carbon leakage. Technical report, CE DelftGoogle Scholar
  15. DEFRA (2007) Compliance and results, analysis of the UK results. Accessed from
  16. Ellerman AD, Convery FJ, de Perthuis C (2010) Pricing carbon: the European union emissions trading scheme. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  17. European Commission (2007) Second report of the high level group on competitiveness, energy and the environment contributing to an integrated approach on competitiveness, energy and environment policies
  18. European Parliament and the Council of the EU (2009) Directive 2009/29/EC of the European parliament and of the council of 23 April 2009 amending directive 2003/87/EC so as to improve and extend the greenhouse gas emission allowance trading scheme of the community. Off J Eur Union I140:63–87Google Scholar
  19. Graichen V, Schumacher K, Matthes F, Mohr L, Duscha V, Schleich J, Diek- mann J (2008) Impacts of the EU emissions trading scheme on the industrial competitiveness in Germany. Technical Report 3707 41 501, Environmental Research of the Federal Ministry of the Environment, Nature Conservation and Nuclear Safety, Berlin, GermanyGoogle Scholar
  20. Grubb M, Neuhoff K (2006) Allocation and competitiveness in the EU emissions trading scheme: policy overview. Clim Policy 6(1):7–30. Google Scholar
  21. Hepburn Grubb, Neuhoff Matthes, Tse (2006) Auctioning of EU ETS Phase II allowances: how and why? Clim Policy 6(1):137–160CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hourcade et al (2007) Differentiation and dynamics of EU ETS industrial competitiveness impacts. Climate Strategies Report, Climate StrategiesGoogle Scholar
  23. IPCC (2007) Climate change: mitigation of climate change. In: Metz ORDB, Bosch PR,Dave R, Meyer LA (eds) Contribution of working group III to the fourth assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  24. Juergens I, Barreiro-Hurlé J, Vasa A (2013) Identifying carbon leakage sectors in the EU ETS and implications of results. Clim Policy 13(1):89–109.
  25. Lacombe R (2008) Economic impact of the european union emission trading scheme: evidence from the rening sector. Masters Thesis, Ecole Polytechnique, ParisGoogle Scholar
  26. Lecourt S, Pallière C, Sartor OJ (2013) The impact of emissions-performance benchmarking on free allocations in EU ETS phase 3.
  27. Lise W, Sijm J, Hobbs BF (2010) The impact of the EU ETS on prices, profits and emissions in the power sector: simulation Results with the COMPETES EU20 model. Environ Resour Econ 47:23–44CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Martin R, Muûls M, Wagner UJ (2010) Still time to reclaim the European union emissions trading system for the European tax payer. Policy Brief, Centre for Economic Performance, London School of EconomicsGoogle Scholar
  29. Martin R, Muûls M, DePreux L, Wagner U (2013) Industrycompensationunder the risk of relocation: a firm-level analysis of the EU emissions trading scheme. NBER working paper.
  30. Maxwell D (2011) Hot air: the carbon price floor in the UK London: IPPR; McCabe, J 2011. “£7bn windfall for UK utilities from carbon price floor” Environmental, Finance, 28 JuneGoogle Scholar
  31. Morgenstern RD, Ho M, Shih JS, Zhang X (2006) The near term impacts of carbon mitigation policies on manufacturing industries. Energy Policy 32(16):1825–1841CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Neuhoff K, Keats K, Sato M (2006) Allocation, incentives and distortion: the impact of EU ETS emission allowance allocations to the electricity sector. Clim Policy 6(1)Google Scholar
  33. Oberndorfer U, Alexeeva-Talebi V, Löschel A (2010) Understanding the competitiveness implications of future phases of EU ETS on the industrial sectors, ZEW Discussion Paper 10–044. ZEW, MannheimGoogle Scholar
  34. Sandbag (2011) Carbon fat cats 2011: the companies profiting from the EU Emissions Trading Scheme. Report, Sandbag Climate Campaign.
  35. Point Carbon (2008) EU ETS Phase II—the potential and scale of windfall profits in the power sector: a report for WWF by point carbon advisory servicesGoogle Scholar
  36. Quirion P (2011) Les Quotas Echangeables D’emissions de Gaza EffetdeSerre:Elements D’analyseE ìconomique. Me ì moire D’habilitation a‘ Diriger Des Recherches. EHESSGoogle Scholar
  37. Reinaud J (2008) Issues behind competitiveness and carbon leakage: focus on heavy industry. EA Information Paper. Paris, France: International, Energy, 2008Google Scholar
  38. Sartor O (2012) Carbon leakage in the primary aluminium sector: what evidence after 6.5 years of the EU ETS? Working paper 2012–12, CDC Climat ResearchGoogle Scholar
  39. Smale R, Hartley M, Hepburn C, Ward J, Grubb M (2006) The impact of \(CO_{2}\) emissions trading on firm profits and market prices. Clim Policy 6(1):31–48CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Tang X (2008) An economic analysis of North American pulp and paper markets, and a competitiveness study of the Canadian pulp and paper products. Ph.D thesis, University of TorontoGoogle Scholar
  41. USA EPA (2004) Unit conversion, emissions factors, and other reference data.
  42. UNFCCC (2006) National emissions reported to the UNFCCC.
  43. UK Office of National Statistics (2004) Trade in Goods Industry BOP MQ10.
  44. UK Office of National Statistics (2006) Annual business inquiry reports.
  45. Wang X, Li, J, Zhang Y (2010) An analysis on the short-term sectoral competitiveness impact of carbon tax in china. IDDRI working paperGoogle Scholar
  46. World Resource Institute (2008) Leveling the carbon playing field: international competition and U.S. climate policy design.
  47. Zachmann G, von Hirschhausen C (2008) First evidence of asymmetric cost pass-through of EU emissions allowances: examining wholesale electricity prices in Germany. Econ Lett 99(3):465–469CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Misato Sato
    • 1
  • Karsten Neuhoff
    • 2
    • 3
  • Verena Graichen
    • 4
  • Katja Schumacher
    • 4
  • Felix Matthes
    • 4
  1. 1.Grantham Research InstituteLondon School of Economics and Political ScienceLondonUK
  2. 2.DIWBerlinGermany
  3. 3.Technical University BerlinBerlinGermany
  4. 4.Öko-Institut, e.V. (Institute for Applied Ecology)BerlinGermany

Personalised recommendations