Advertisement

Environmental and Resource Economics

, Volume 62, Issue 4, pp 949–978 | Cite as

Firms’ Emissions and Self-Reporting Under Competitive Audit Mechanisms

  • Andreas Marcel Oestreich
Article

Abstract

Many environmental tax systems rely on self-reported emissions by firms. These emission reports are verified through costly auditing efforts by regulatory agencies that are constrained in their auditing budgets. A typical assumption in the literature is that the agencies allocate audit efforts randomly among otherwise identical firms (random audit mechanism). This paper compares the incentives on firms’ emissions and self-reporting behavior under the random audit mechanism to the incentives under competitive audit mechanisms (CAMs). Under CAMs, higher reported emissions by a firm relative to other firms result in a lower audit intensity. This creates a reporting contest between the firms. The two CAMs under investigation apply different degrees of competitiveness in the reporting contest. I find that both CAMs lead to more truthful reporting, which is in line with the previous literature. Interestingly and novel to the literature, I find that some competition in reporting may induce fewer emissions compared with random auditing, while too much competition in reporting may induce comparatively higher emissions caused by firms.

Keywords

Environmental regulation Information disclosure Regulatory compliance Tournament theory 

JEL Classification

D62 H83 L51 Q58 

Notes

Acknowledgments

I am indebted to René Kirkegaard, John Livernois, and Asha Sadanand for their academic supervision, encouragement and valuable research advice. I am also grateful for comments and suggestions from three anonymous Referees as well as from J. Atsu Amegashie, Jeremy Clark, Ida Ferrara, Jean G. Forand, Johanna Goertz, Patrick González, Anthony Heyes, Mike Hoy, Emma Hutchinson, Lester Kwong, Bernard Lebrun, Charles Mason, Ross McKitrick, Dana McLean, Ray Rees and Steven Renzetti as well as from audiences at the 2014 Workshop on Game Theory and the Environment in Montreal, the 2012 ALEA Conference in Stanford, the 2012 EAERE Conference in Prague, the 2012 CREE Conference in Vancouver, the 2012 CEA Conference in Calgary, the 2011 ACEA Conference in Charlottetown, the 2012 UOttawa Ph.D. Workshop on Environmental Economics and Policy and the seminar of CES/Ifo Institute in Munich. I acknowledge the financial support from the Ontario Graduate Scholarship program as well as from the Sustainable Prosperity Network at the University of Ottawa.

Supplementary material

10640_2014_9855_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (166 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (pdf 166 KB)

References

  1. Bayer R, Cowell F (2009) Tax compliance and firms’ strategic interdependence. J Public Econ 93(11–12):1131–1143CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Colson G, Menapace L (2012) Multiple receptor ambient monitoring and firm compliance with environmental taxes under budget and target driven regulatory missions. J Environ Econ Manag (in press)Google Scholar
  3. ECO (2007) Office of the Environmental Commissioner of Ontario. A special report to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario. “ Doing less with less: how shortfalls in budget, staffing and in-house expertise are hampering the effectiveness of MOE and MNR”. Technical Report, 2007Google Scholar
  4. ECO (2011) Office of the Environmental Commissioner of Ontario. Annual report 2010/2011 to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario. “ Engaging solutions”. Technical Report, 2011Google Scholar
  5. Endres A, Rundshagen B (2012) Escalating penalties: a supergame approach. Econ Gov 13:29–49CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Epstein G, Nitzan S (2006) The politics of randomness. Soc Choice Welf 27:423–433CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Evans MF, Gilpatric SM, Liu L (2009) Regulation with direct benefits of information disclosure and imperfect monitoring. J Environ Econ Manag 57:284–292CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Friesen L (2003) Targeting enforcement to improve compliance with environmental regulations. J Environ Econ Manag 46:72–86CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Fudenberg D, Tirole J (1984) The fat-cat effect, the puppy-dog ploy, and the lean and hungry look. Am Econ Rev Pap Proc 74(2):361–366Google Scholar
  10. Gilpatric SM, Vossler CA, McKee M (2011) Regulatory enforcement with competitive endogenous audit mechanisms. RAND J Econ 42(2):292–312CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Harford JD (1987) Self-reporting of pollution and the firm’s behavior under imperfectly enforceable regulations. J Environ Econ Manag 14:293–303CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Harrington W (1988) Enforcement leverage when penalties are restricted. J Public Econ 37:29–53CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Harsanyi J (1973) Games with randomly perturbed payoffs. Int J Game Theory 2:1–23CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Heyes A, Rickman N (1999) Regulatory dealing—revisiting the Harrington paradox. J Public Econ 72(3):361–378CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hillman AL, Riley JG (1989) Politically contestable rents and transfers. Econ Politics 1(1):17–39CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Kaplow L, Shavell S (1994) Optimal law enforcement with self-reporting of behavior. J Political Econ 102(3):583–606CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Konrad K (2009) Strategy and dynamics in contests. Oxford University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  18. Livernois J, McKenna C (1999) Truth or consequences-enforcing pollution standards with self-reporting. J Public Econ 71(3):415–440CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Macho-Stadler I, Pérez-Castrillo D (2006) Optimal enforcement policy and firms’ emissions and compliance with environmental taxes. J Environ Econ Manag 51:110–131CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Marchi S, Hamilton JT (2006) Assessing the accuracy of self-reported data: an evaluation of the toxics release inventory. J Risk Uncertain 32:57–76CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Maskin E, Riley J (2000) Equilibrium in sealed high bid auctions. Rev Econ Stud 67:439–454CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Polinsky AM, Shavell S (1979) The optimal trade-off between the probability and magnitude of fines. Am Econ Rev 69(5):880–891Google Scholar
  23. Rapoport A, Amaldoss W (2004) Mixed-strategy play in single-stage first-price all-pay auctions with symmetric players. J Econ Behav Organ 54:585–607CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Sandmo A (2002) Efficient environmental policy with imperfect compliance. Environ Resour Econ 23(1):85–103Google Scholar
  25. Stranlund JK (2007) The regulatory choice of noncompliance in emissions trading programs. Environ Resour Econ 38:99–117Google Scholar
  26. Telle K (2013) Monitoring and enforcement of environmental regulations: lessons from a natural field experiment in Norway. J Public Econ 99:24–34CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Tietenberg T (1998) Disclosure strategies for pollution control. Environ Resour Econ 11:587–602CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Tullock G (1980) Efficient rent seeking. In: Buchanan JM, Tollison RD, Tullock G (eds) Toward a theory of the rent-seeking society. Texas A&M University Press, College Station, pp 97–112Google Scholar
  29. Victoria EPA (2011) Environment Protection Authority Victoria. Compliance and enforcement policy, Technical Report, 2011Google Scholar
  30. Weitzman M (1974) Prices versus quantities. Rev Econ Stud 41:477–491CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. van Zwet WR (1979) Mean, median, mode II. Stat Neerl 33(1):1–5CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of EconomicsBrock UniversitySt. CatharinesCanada

Personalised recommendations