DISCUSSION PAPER

January 2011  RFF DP 11-01

The Porter
Hypothesis at 20
Can Environmental Regulation
Enhance Innovation and
Competitiveness?

Stefan Ambec, Mark A. Cohen, Stewart Elgie, and

Paul Lanoie

1616 P St. NW
Washington, DC 20036
202-328-5000 www.rff.org
 The Porter Hypothesis at 20: Can Environmental Regulation
Enhance Innovation and Competitiveness?
Stefan Ambec, Mark A. Cohen, Stewart Elgie, and Paul Lanoie

Abstract
Twenty years ago, Harvard Business School economist and strategy professor Michael Porter
stood conventional wisdom about the impact of environmental regulation on business on its head by
declaring that well-designed regulation could actually enhance competitiveness. The traditional view of
environmental regulation held by virtually all economists until that time was that requiring firms to
reduce an externality like pollution necessarily restricted their options and thus by definition reduced their
profits. After all, if profitable opportunities existed to reduce pollution, profit-maximizing firms would
already be taking advantage of those opportunities. Over the past 20 years, much has been written about
what has since become known simply as the Porter Hypothesis (PH). Yet even today, we find conflicting
evidence and alternative theories that might explain the PH, and oftentimes a misunderstanding of what
the PH does and does not say. This paper provides an overview of the key theoretical and empirical
insights into the PH to date, draws policy implications from these insights, and sketches out major
research themes going forward.

Key Words: Porter Hypothesis, environmental policy, innovation, performance

© 2011 Resources for the Future. All rights reserved. No portion of this paper may be reproduced without
permission of the authors.
Discussion papers are research materials circulated by their authors for purposes of information and discussion.
They have not necessarily undergone formal peer review.
Contents

1. Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 1 

2. The Porter Hypothesis ........................................................................................................ 2 

3. New Developments in the Theory ...................................................................................... 5 

4. The Empirical Evidence ..................................................................................................... 7 

5. Design of Policies to Enhance Competitiveness.............................................................. 10 

Environmental Policies ..................................................................................................... 10 
Industrial and Patent Policies ............................................................................................ 12 
Training ............................................................................................................................. 12 
Organizational or Governance Conditions........................................................................ 13 

6. The Future Research Agenda .......................................................................................... 14 

Data and Methodological Issues ....................................................................................... 14 
Nonregulatory Policies...................................................................................................... 14 
Longitudinal Studies ......................................................................................................... 15 
Global Studies ................................................................................................................... 16 

7. Conclusions ........................................................................................................................ 16 

References .............................................................................................................................. 18 

Appendix. Theoretical and Empirical Studies on the Porter Hypothesis ........................ 24 
Resources for the Future Ambec et al.

The Porter Hypothesis at 20: Can Environmental Regulation

Enhance Innovation and Competitiveness?
Stefan Ambec, Mark A. Cohen, Stewart Elgie, and Paul Lanoie

1. Introduction
Twenty years ago, Harvard Business School economist and strategy professor Michael
Porter stood conventional wisdom about the impact of environmental regulation on business on
its head by declaring that well-designed regulation could actually enhance competitiveness.
According to Porter (1991), “Strict environmental regulations do not inevitably hinder
competitive advantage against rivals; indeed, they often enhance it.” He went on to suggest
various mechanisms by which environmental regulations might enhance competitiveness, such
as reduction in the use of costly chemicals or lower waste disposal costs. The traditional view of
environmental regulation held by virtually all economists until that time was that requiring firms
to reduce an externality like pollution necessarily restricted their options and thus by definition
reduced their profits. After all, if profitable opportunities existed to reduce pollution, profit-
maximizing firms would already be taking advantage of those opportunities.

Over the past 20 years, much has been written about what has since become known
simply as the Porter Hypothesis (PH). Yet even today, we find conflicting evidence, alternative
theories that might explain the PH, and oftentimes a misunderstanding of what the PH does and
does not say. However, a careful examination of both the theory and evidence yields some
important policy implications for design of regulatory instruments, as well as a rich research
agenda to further understand what works, what does not, and why.

Ambec, researcher, Toulouse School of Economics (INRA-LERNA), and visiting professor, University of
Gothenburg ([email protected]). Cohen, vice president for research and senior fellow, Resources for the
Future; professor of management and law, Vanderbilt University ([email protected]). Elgie, professor, faculty of law,
University of Ottawa, and chair, Sustainable Prosperity ([email protected]). Lanoie, professor of economics,
HEC Montreal ([email protected]). The authors thank Nick Johnstone, Leena Lankowski, David Popp, and
Marcus Wagner for helpful comments on an earlier draft. All errors remain those of the authors.
This paper was originally prepared as a background paper for a symposium hosted by Sustainable Prosperity and
Resources for the Future on June 28, 2010.

1
Resources for the Future Ambec et al.

This paper provides an overview of the key theoretical and empirical insights into the PH
to date and sketches out major research themes going forward. We start in Section 2 with a brief
overview of the Porter Hypothesis, as well as the variations that have been expressed in the
literature. Next, Section 3 examines the theoretical developments that have taken place over the
past 20 years to explain why regulation might indeed improve competitiveness. Section 4
similarly reviews the empirical evidence to date. Section 5 enters the realm of policy
recommendations, by examining the implications of our knowledge on the PH for designing
regulatory mechanisms that promote innovation and competitiveness. Finally, we end with a
section outlining what we see to be the main research gaps that have yet to be filled in this
important policy area.

2. The Porter Hypothesis

The traditional view among economists and managers concerning environmental
protection is that it comes at an additional cost imposed on firms, which may erode their global
competitiveness. Environmental regulations (ER) such as technological standards, environmental
taxes, or tradable emissions permits force firms to allocate some inputs (labor, capital) to
pollution reduction, which is unproductive from a business perspective. Technological standards
restrict the choice of technologies or inputs in the production process. Taxes and tradable permits
charge firms for their emissions pollution, a by-product of the production process that was free
before. These fees necessarily divert capital away from productive investments.

This traditional paradigm was challenged by a number of analysts, notably Professor

Michael Porter (Porter 1991) and his coauthor Claas van der Linde (Porter and van der Linde
1995). Based on case studies, the authors suggest that pollution is often a waste of resources and
that a reduction in pollution may lead to an improvement in the productivity with which
resources are used. More stringent but properly designed environmental regulations (in
particular, market-based instrument such as taxes or cap-and-trade emissions allowances) can
“trigger innovation [broadly defined] that may partially or more than fully offset the costs of
complying with them” in some instances (Porter and van der Linde 1995, 98).

Figure 1 summarizes the main causal links involved in the PH. As Porter and van der
Linde first described this relationship, if properly designed, environmental regulations can lead
to “innovation offsets” that will not only improve environmental performance, but also
partially—and sometimes more than fully—offset the additional cost of regulation.
 

2
Resources for the Future Ambec et al.

Figure 1. Schematic Representation of the Porter Hypothesis

   Environmental 
  Performance 
Strict but Flexible 
 
Environmental  Innovation  
Regulations  Business 
  Performance 
(sometimes) 
 

Porter and van der Linde go on to explain that there are at least five reasons that properly
crafted regulations may lead to these outcomes:

 First, regulation signals companies about likely resource inefficiencies and potential
technological improvements.

 Second, regulation focused on information gathering can achieve major benefits by

raising corporate awareness.

 Third, regulation reduces the uncertainty that investments to address the environment will
be valuable.

 Fourth, regulation creates pressure that motivates innovation and progress.

 Fifth, regulation levels the transitional playing field.
Finally, they note, “We readily admit that innovation cannot always completely offset the
cost of compliance, especially in the short term before learning can reduce the cost of
innovation-based solutions” (Porter and van der Linde 1995, 100).

The Porter Hypothesis has met with great success in political debate, especially in the
United States, because it contradicts the idea that environmental protection is always detrimental
to economic growth. The PH has been invoked to persuade the business community to accept
environmental regulations, as it may benefit from them in addition to other stakeholders. In a
nutshell, well-designed environmental regulations might lead to a Pareto improvement or “win–
win” situation in some cases, by not only protecting the environment, but also enhancing profits
and competitiveness through the improvement of the products or their production process or
through enhancement of product quality.

3
Resources for the Future Ambec et al.

The PH has been criticized for being incompatible with the assumption of profit-
maximizing firms (see Palmer et al. 1995). Indeed, the hypothesis rests on the idea that firms
often ignore profitable opportunities. In other words, why would regulation actually be needed
for firms to adopt profit-increasing innovations? In fact, Porter directly questions the view that
firms are profit-maximizing entities: “The possibility that regulation might act as a spur to
innovation arises because the world does not fit the Panglossian belief that firms always make
optimal choices.” As discussed below, firms might not appear to be making optimal choices for
many reasons, such as imperfect information or organizational or market failures.

Moreover, even if systematically profitable business opportunities are missed (“low-

hanging fruits”), the next question is, how could environmental regulations change that reality?
Are regulators in a better position than managers to find these profitable business opportunities?
Porter argues that environmental regulation may help firms identify inefficient uses of costly
resources. They may also produce and disseminate new information (e.g., best-practice
technologies) and help overcome organizational inertia.

There is much confusion in the literature about what the Porter Hypothesis actually says.
As we note above, it does not say that all regulation leads to innovation—only that well-designed
regulations do. This is consistent with the growing trend toward performance-based and/or
market-based environmental regulations. Second, it does not state that this innovation necessarily
offsets the cost of regulation—that is, it does not claim that regulation is always a free lunch.
Instead, it does make the claim that in many instances, these innovations will more than offset
the cost of regulation—in other words, there may be a free lunch in many cases.

Previous authors have disaggregated the PH into its component parts in order to test the
theory and evidence. First (as shown in the first two boxes of Figure 1), properly designed
environmental regulation may spur innovation.1 This has often been called the “weak” version of
the PH (see Jaffe and Palmer 1997), because it does not tell us whether that innovation is good or
bad for firms. Of course, the notion that regulation might spur technological innovation is not a
new idea in economics and would not itself have brought about such controversy. The second
part of the PH (the lower right-hand side of Figure 1) is that this innovation often more than
offsets any additional regulatory costs—in other words, environmental regulation often leads to
an increase in firm competitiveness. This is often called the “strong” version of the PH. (Note,

1 Actually, the notion that regulation could spur technological innovation follows from the notion of induced
innovation, which goes back to Hicks (1932).

4
Resources for the Future Ambec et al.

however, that the PH never goes so far as to suggest that environmental regulation will always
lead to either innovation or increased competitiveness, but the authors say that it is probable.)
Finally, in what has been called the “narrow” version of the PH, it is noted that flexible
regulatory policies give firms greater incentives to innovate and thus are better than prescriptive
forms of regulation. Indeed, Porter challenges regulators to examine the likely impacts of their
actions and choose regulatory mechanisms that will foster innovation and competitiveness,
particularly economic instruments. Thus, the PH is as much a normative prescription for
regulatory policy as it is a positive assessment of current policy.

3. New Developments in the Theory

This controversy gave rise to an abundant economics literature on the theoretical bases
underlying the Porter Hypothesis over the last 20 years. A sample of this literature is summarized
in Appendix. We can distinguish between two approaches. A first set of papers departs from the
assumption of profit-maximizing firms in light of the emerging organizational and behavioral
economics literature. The rationality of the firm is driven by its manager, who has motivations
and objectives other than profit maximization. He or she might be risk-averse (Kennedy 1994),
resistant to any costly change (Aghion et al. 1997; Ambec and Barla 2007), or rationally
bounded (Gabel and Sinclair-Desgagné 1998). He or she therefore misses good investment
opportunities (from the point of view of the firm’s profit) because they are too risky, too costly
(for the manager but not for the firm), or out of the manager’s habits and routines. In Ambec and
Barla (2006), the manager has present-biased preferences that make her or him procrastinate on
profitable but costly investment opportunities (“low-hanging fruits”). Because the cost of
innovating is for “now” while the benefit is “later,” a present-biased manager will tend to
postpone any investments in innovation. By making those investments more profitable or
requiring them, environmental regulations help the manager overcome this self-control problem,
which enhances firm profits.2
A second set of papers reconciles the PH with profit maximization by assuming a
“market failure.” Under imperfect interfirm competition, Simpson and Bradford (1996) show
that a government may provide a strategic advantage to its domestic industry by imposing a more
stringent environmental regulation. Also, with imperfect competition but differentiated products,
André et al. (2009) show that a minimum standard for environmental product quality might

2 See also Chowdhury (2010) and Kriechel and Ziesemer (2009) on timing issues.

5
Resources for the Future Ambec et al.

benefit all firms by solving a coordination problem—allowing them to reach a Pareto-improving

equilibrium. Mohr (2002) and Mohr and Saha (2008) provide a similar coordination failure
argument with technological spillovers. When the return on a firm’s R&D investment is partly
captured by its competitors, firms underinvest in cleaner and more productive technologies. An
environmental regulation forcing adoption may thus switch the industry from an equilibrium
with low investment in R&D to a Pareto-improving equilibrium with higher investments in
R&D.3 Greaker (2003) also relies on technological spillovers as a market failure to provide a
theoretical foundation to the PH, but with an upstream market for innovation. In the same vein,
Xepapadeas and Zeeuw (1999) analyze the impact of environmental regulations on the dynamic
of capital. They show that an emissions tax may lead to retirement of older vintage capital,
thereby increasing average productivity. 4 However, despite this productivity gain, the impact on
profit is negative in their study. In a related paper, Popp (2005) argues that uncertain returns to
R&D can reconcile the notion that in specific cases, researchers observe complete offsets of
environmental regulation, while economywide studies typically find a net cost to environmental
regulation. Because the returns to R&D are highly skewed, some innovations will result in
significant cost savings even if the average innovation does not.

A related approach relies on an “organization failure” to reconcile the PH with a profit-

maximizing firm. It formalizes Porter’s idea that environmental regulation may overcome
organizational inertia. In Ambec and Barla (2002), informational asymmetries on technologies
inside the firm might support the PH. Managers have private information about the real costs of
new technologies that enhances both productivity and environmental performance. They use
information opportunistically by exaggerating these costs, thereby extracting some rent from the
firm. By imposing environmental regulation, the government lowers the rent managers extract to
the benefit of the firm. The regulation is profitable for the firm when the rent saved offsets the
cost of complying with the regulation. It helps the head of the firm to foster technological
innovation at lower organizational costs.

3 For a counterargument, see Gans (2010), who shows that more stringent climate change policies will not
necessarily lead to more innovation. Indeed, it is demonstrated that a tighter emissions cap will reduce the scale of
fossil fuel usage, and this effect will diminish incentives to improve fossil fuel efficiencies.
4Notice that Feichtinger et al. (2005) show that the opposite may occur: an emissions tax may increase the capital’s
average age.

6
Resources for the Future Ambec et al.

4. The Empirical Evidence

Many researchers have attempted to test the Porter Hypothesis empirically. Three
approaches emerge from this empirical literature. The first intends to analyze the “weak” version
of the PH—the link between the intensity of environmental regulation and innovation (that is to
say, the first link in the chain described in Figure 1). Operationally, innovation is generally
assessed through R&D expenses (input) or through the number of registered patents (the product
of R&D activity). However, as Porter and van der Linde (1995, 98) make clear, innovation is not
just technological change and can take various forms, including “a product’s or service’s design,
the segments it serves, how it is produced, how it is marketed and how it is supported.”

A summary of many of these studies is contained in the Appendix (adapted and updated
from Ambec and Barla 2006; Ambec and Lanoie 2008). As an illustration of this first set of
papers, Jaffe and Palmer (1997) estimate the relationship between total R&D expenditures (or
the number of successful patent applications) and pollution abatement costs (a proxy for the
stringency of environmental regulation). They find a positive link with R&D expenditures (an
increase of 0.15% in R&D expenditures for a pollution abatement cost increase of 1%), but no
statistically significant link with the number of patents. However, restricting themselves to
environmentally related successful patents, Lanjouw and Mody (1996), Brunnermeier and Cohen
(2003), Popp (2003, 2006), Arimura et al. (2007), Johnstone et al. (2010b), and Lanoie et al.
(2010) find a positive relationship with environmental regulation. Furthermore, Johnstone et al.
(2010a) examine not only the impact of the stringency of environmental policies, but also the
impact of their stability and flexibility (as measured by the World Economic Forum Survey).
Evidence is found that both stability and flexibility have distinct effects on innovation beyond
that of policy stringency.

For the firm’s technological choices, two older studies emphasize a negative relationship
between environmental regulations and investment in capital. Nelson et al. (1993) find that air
pollution regulations significantly increased the age of capital in the U.S. electric utilities in the
seventies. As discussed later, however, this finding might not be surprising given the fact that
U.S. regulations imposed more stringent requirements on new sources—likely an example of
regulations that are not well designed to encourage innovation. According to Gray and
Shadbegian (1998), more stringent air and water regulations have a significant impact on paper
mills’ technological choice in the United States. However, their results suggest that such
regulations tend to divert investment from productivity to abatement, consistent with the
standard paradigm.

7
Resources for the Future Ambec et al.

Altogether, these works deduce that there is a positive link, although varying in strength,
between environmental regulation and innovation.

The second empirical approach assesses the impact of environmental regulation on the
business performance of the firm (the link between the first and last steps in the chain described
in Figure 1). The “strong” version of the Porter Hypothesis is tested, however, without looking at
the cause of this variation in performance (whether it is linked to innovation or to another cause).
The firm’s business performance is often measured by its productivity.

This second approach has a long tradition in the economics literature (see Jaffe et al.
1995 for a review). The second half of the Appendix lists many of these studies. Most papers
reviewed in Jaffe et al. (1995) highlight a negative impact of environmental regulation on
productivity. For instance, Gollop and Roberts (1983) estimate that SO2 regulations slowed down
productivity growth in the United States in the 1970s by 43%. However, several more recent
papers find more positive results. For example, Berman and Bui (2001) report that refineries
located in the Los Angeles area enjoyed a significantly higher productivity than other U.S.
refineries despite a more stringent air pollution regulation in this area. Similarly, Alpay et al.
(2002) estimate the productivity of the Mexican food-processing industry to be increasing with
the pressure of environmental regulation. They therefore suggest that a more stringent regulation
is not always detrimental to productivity.

Lanoie et al. (2010) combine both approaches, assessing for the first time the whole
Porter causality chain. The data come from a unique OECD survey carried out with more than
4,000 companies located in seven industrialized countries. The method consists of assessing
three equations by proceeding in two stages with adequate instruments (“two-stage least
squares”). Following Figure 1, the three dependent variables are environmental innovation,
environmental performance, and business performance. The results first show a positive and
significant link between the perceived severity of environmental regulations and environmental
innovation; this is consistent with the weak version of the PH. Furthermore, the “predicted”
environmental innovation from the first regression has a positive and significant impact on
business performance. This provides evidence of the causal link suggested by the strong form of
the PH—that regulation spurs innovation, which further enhances business performance.
However, Lanoie and colleagues also note that environmental regulation has a direct negative
effect on business performance. On balance, they find that the net effect is negative—that is, the
positive effect of innovation on business performance does not outweigh the negative effect of
the regulation itself. In brief, regulation appears to be costly—but less so than if one were to
consider only the direct costs of regulation itself.

8
Resources for the Future Ambec et al.

One important caveat to this negative finding is that most previous studies have not
adequately taken into account the dynamic dimensions of the Porter Hypothesis. Porter argues
that more stringent environmental policies will lead to innovations to reduce inefficiencies, and
this, in turn, will eventually reduce costs. This process may take some time. In previous studies
on the determinants of productivity, researchers have often regressed productivity at time 0 on
proxies of environmental regulation stringency at time 0 as well, which does not allow time for
the innovation process to occur. By introducing lags of three or four years between changes in
the severity of environmental regulations and their impact on productivity, Lanoie et al. (2008)
have found that stricter regulations led to modest long-term gains in productivity in a sample of
17 Quebec manufacturing sectors—first reducing productivity in year one, having a slightly
positive effect in year two, and then resulting in more positive outcomes in years three and
four—more than offsetting the first year’s loss. Furthermore, they show that this effect is more
important in industries highly exposed to outside competition. Further research should focus on
these more dynamic impacts.

A third approach to evaluating the PH is to examine competition among nations—which

returns to the original hypothesis of Porter that environmental regulation will enhance a
country’s competitiveness. Much of the empirical literature turns the issue on its head,
examining the “pollution haven” hypothesis—that stringent environmental regulation will induce
firms to leave the country for less strict (and hence, less expensive) regulatory regimes. The PH
would suggest just the opposite. Of course, firms might move polluting facilities abroad for other
reasons, such as access to markets or differences in the cost of labor, land, transportation, and
other inputs (not just pollution).

Much of the earlier literature on the pollution haven hypothesis found a positive impact—
industries with more stringent regulations (generally proxied by higher pollution abatement
costs) had less net trade flows—consistent with the PH. However, as Copeland and Taylor
(2004) and Brunnermeier and Levinson (2004) explain in their literature reviews, both
endogeneity and unobserved variables that are correlated with regulation may explain these
results. Indeed, they cite more recent literature accounting for these issues and conclude that
while much work still needs to be done, the weight of the evidence supports the pollution haven
hypothesis. Nevertheless, the magnitude of this effect does not appear to be “strong enough to be
the primary determinant of the direction of trade or investment flows” (Copeland and Taylor
2004, 48). Perhaps more important from the perspective of the PH, few of these studies have
been able to distinguish among the types of regulatory mechanisms employed; instead, they often
use pollution control costs or emissions levels (see, e.g., Quiroga et al. 2009) as proxies of

9
Resources for the Future Ambec et al.

regulatory stringency. Although these might be reasonable measures of stringency, we do not

know whether countries with more stringent policies are using “good” or “bad” forms of
environmental regulation.

5. Design of Policies to Enhance Competitiveness

It is clear from both the original Porter writings and empirical evidence to date that both
innovation and competitiveness outcomes depend significantly on the context. The PH itself was
premised on flexible, market-based regulation—not rigid command-and-control regulation.
Beyond environmental regulations, other government policies can interact with the link between
environmental regulation and innovation or competitiveness. In this section, we briefly explore
the implications of policy design for the PH.   

Environmental Policies
As mentioned by Porter, the type of regulatory instrument is an important premise of the
PH. As Porter and van der Linde (1995, 110) argue:
If environmental standards are to foster the innovation offsets that arise
from new technologies and approaches to production, they should adhere to three
principles. First, they must create the maximum opportunity for innovation,
leaving the approach to innovation to industry and not the standard-setting
agency. Second, regulations should foster continuous improvement, rather than
locking in any particular technology. Third, the regulatory process should leave as
little room as possible for uncertainty at every stage.

Market-based and flexible instruments such as emissions taxes or tradable allowances, or

performance standards, are more favorable to innovation than technological standards, because
they leave more freedom to firms on the technological solution to minimize compliance costs.
Some authors, like Jaffe and Palmer (1997), refer to that as the narrow version of the PH. In this
vein, Burtraw (2000) provides evidence that the switch in environmental regulations for SO2
emissions in the United States from a technological standard with emissions caps to an allowance
trading program in 1990 considerably reduced compliance cost (40% to 140% lower than
projection)—although the net effect was still a net cost. However, the switch to an emissions cap
enhanced innovation and fostered organizational change and competition on the upstream input
market. The program left enough flexibility for the firm to select the best strategy for reducing

10
Resources for the Future Ambec et al.

emissions, including a switch to coal with lower sulfur content. The industry also experienced
innovation in fuel blending and in the scrubber market.5 In addition, the switch from a
technological standard to tradable emissions allowances led to a transfer of responsibility from
engineers or chemists, typically in charge of environmental issues, to top executives such as
financial vice presidents, who are trained to treat SO2 emissions allowances as financial assets.

Along the same lines, Hoglund Isaksson (2005) looks at the impact of a charge on
nitrogen oxides (NOx) emissions introduced in Sweden in 1992. She examines the impact on
abatement cost functions of 114 combustion plants during the period 1990–1996. Her findings
suggest that extensive emissions reductions have taken place at zero or very low cost, and that
effects of learning and technological development in abatement have been present during the
analyzed period.

Lanoie et al. (2010), described above, also provides indirect evidence on this issue,
showing that performance standards are leading to more innovation than do more prescriptive
technological standards. Driesen (2005, 303) reviews the literature and argues that “pollution
taxes have a greater potential to promote innovation than either emissions trading (at least when
permits are given away, rather than sold) or traditional regulation. For him, both emissions
trading and performance standards produce incentives only to attain the standards government
sets, rather than to go further. While trading does provide incentives for low cost sources to
produce some ‘extra’ credits, it does so only to the extent that high cost sources need credits to
meet their limits. Once the high cost sources have purchased enough credits to attain their limits,
no further incentive to go beyond compliance exists. Pollution taxes, however, provide a
continuous incentive for polluters to deploy innovations costing less than the marginal tax rate.”

Furthermore, if market-based instruments generate revenues (e.g. from taxes or permit

auctioning), then the efficient recycling of those revenues can improve competitiveness
outcomes. For example, Andersen et al. (2007) analyzes environmental tax revenues in seven EU
countries that are recycled into other tax cuts (labor or income) and finds that the result is a
neutral or slightly positive net impact on GDP.

5 The former command-and-control regulation did not provide incentives to increase SO2 removal by scrubbers from
more than the 90% (for high-sulfur coal) or 70% (for low-sulfur coal) standard. With the new program, the
incentives are such that upgrading of existing scrubbers through improvements is likely to occur.

11
Resources for the Future Ambec et al.

Finally, Lankoski (2010, 6) reviews the empirical evidence to date and concludes, in line
with Porter and van der Linde, that regulatory “policy should strive to be win-win compatible.
This speaks in favour of policies that provide incentives to innovation, are stable and predictable,
make use of suitable transition periods, focus on end results rather than means, and economic
policy instruments” (see also the discussion in Wagner 2006).

Industrial and Patent Policies

Industrial and patent policies might complement environmental regulation to protect the
environment at lowest cost to firms. In particular, well-defined property rights on innovations
might help reduce R&D spillovers to the benefit of all innovating firms while slowing diffusion.
Mandatory licenses might also foster technological adoption—but at the risk of reducing the
incentive to invest in R&D. Subsidies and tax credits for R&D spending might make
technological change as a strategy for environmental compliance more attractive. Popp (2006)
provides evidence that the timing of the introduction of more stringent environmental regulations
has an impact on the number of patents issued on pollution abatement technology. More
precisely, the introduction of stringent sulfur dioxide (SO2) and nitrogen dioxide (NOx) standards
in the United States, Germany, and Japan leads to a huge increase of patents issued on related
abatement technologies in each of the three countries. Interestingly, transfer of technologies
occurs across countries, though indirectly: earlier patents issued in other countries are cited on
the new patent applications. In the same vein, Dechezlepêtre et al. (2010) study international
transfer of technologies related to climate change mitigation policies, such as wind and solar
power. They find that the strictness of intellectual property rights in a country seems to favor the
diffusion of green power technologies.6

Training
Improved productivity or competitiveness under the PH relies heavily on the possibility
of low-hanging fruit—although new technological innovations themselves are also important.
Busy managers, especially in small and medium enterprises (SMEs), may not always have the
time and the technical expertise to identify these profitable opportunities. Training may help
them. Rochon-Fabien and Lanoie (2010) investigate the benefits of an original Canadian training
program, the Enviroclub initiative. This initiative was developed to assist SMEs in improving

6 Maskus (2010) provides a discussion on intellectual property rights on environmental and climate technologies.

12
Resources for the Future Ambec et al.

their profitability and competitiveness through enhanced environmental performance. An

Enviroclub consists of a group of 10–15 SMEs, each of which carries out one profitable pollution
prevention project. To support this practical experience, business participants attend 4 days of
workshops on various themes related to environmental performance. They also receive the
services of a consultant for 90 hours. This consultant analyzes the operations of the firm and,
after a thorough diagnosis, recommends different measures to prevent pollution and enhance
business performance. The participating firm is committed to adopt at least one of the
recommendations of the consultant. Rochon-Fabien and Lanoie (2010) examine the first 187
projects emerging from this program and conclude that all of them were profitable for the
participating firms, i.e. reducing costs and pollution at the same time. Lyon and van Hoof (2009)
provide similar results for Mexico.

Organizational or Governance Conditions

As noted, Porter argues that organizational inertia can be one reason why firms are
missing profitable opportunities to both reduce pollution and increase profits. In the same vein,
environmental regulations might help firms overcome their organizational inertia by forcing
them to review the organization of production and their business model. This is more likely in
firms with deficient governance structures, including asymmetric information with firms among
divisions, lack of commitment by the hierarchy, costly communication, or contractual
incompleteness. Such organizational or governance failures either constrain the ability of
managers to pursue their objectives or distort incentives within the firm. The results from
Burtraw (2000) showing how SO2 allowances were handled by financial officers instead of
environmental managers is a good example, as financial officers presumably had more of an
incentive to reduce pollution (which would either increase the value of allowance they could sell
or reduce the need to buy allowances). Inspired by three case studies, Arjalies and Ponssard
(2010) analyze the managerial dimension of the Porter Hypothesis in firms that face different
forms of environmental regulations and pressures regarding climate change. They conclude that
the ability to support the Porter Hypothesis depends on the stage of development of the firm.

Recent trends to increase corporate transparency and reporting (e.g., the Carbon
Disclosure Project and Global Reporting Initiative), provide training on sustainability issues, hire
corporate responsibility officers who often report directly to the Board of Directors, and tappoint
members of the Board of Directors with sustainability experience all point to actions that might
reduce organizational inertia further.

13
Resources for the Future Ambec et al.

6. The Future Research Agenda

After 20 years, the PH continues to stimulate academic research and policy debates.
Although we have learned a lot, findings are often very context specific. With changes in
globalization, industry structure, and social expectations, the research agenda over the next 20
years is already full. We have categorized the future research agenda into four major themes, as
follows.

Data and Methodological Issues

Much of the existing literature necessarily uses proxies for the key variables of interest.
For example, in studies of innovation, environmental regulations are often proxied by
environmental compliance costs. Yet the PH does not posit that higher abatement costs will lead
to innovation. Indeed, higher compliance costs might simply be attributable to older plants, for
example, not more stringent regulatory standards. Instead, the PH suggests that more stringent
environmental standards lead to investment in R&D (or changes in processes, organizations, and
so on), which in turn leads to innovation. The challenge for researchers is to find appropriate data
to fully understand and test these mechanisms.

Another reason we might be observing conflicting results is that firm, industry, or

environmental characteristics affect the extent to which innovation offsets and productivity or
competitiveness enhancements occur. What is it about manufacturing industries in Canada
between 1985 and 1994 (Lanoie et al. 2008) or the U.S. petroleum industry between 1987 and
1995 (Berman and Bui 2001) that caused them to have an increase in productivity when faced
with stricter environmental standards, while just the opposite was found in pollution-intensive
industries from U.S. paper mills between 1979 and 1990 (Gray and Shadbegian 2003)?

These types of challenges abound in the literature on the PH. Lankoski (2010) provides a
nice summary of these issues and notes that authors have identified 50 or more methodological
or measurement problems that make it difficult to compare and draw conclusions. Not only is
future research to refine and improve upon these issues, but perhaps a serious meta-analysis
would help uncover some of the underlying effects and shed more light on these issues.

Nonregulatory Policies
As noted above, some evidence exists that training programs may provide knowledge to
environmental managers about more productive (and perhaps even profitable) approaches to
environmental protection. Related to direct training on better compliance approaches are the
growing number of voluntary programs such as the 33/50 and Energy Star programs in the

14
Resources for the Future Ambec et al.

United States as well as elsewhere. While these programs are generally designed to provide
companies with knowledge and/or incentives to go beyond compliance—either to reduce costs or
to increase demand for their products—they may have significant ancillary benefits of increasing
compliance with existing regulations.

In addition, there is growing evidence that mandatory disclosure programs have resulted
in improvements in environmental performance—even when not mandated. For example, while
Hamilton (1995) finds that on average, firms have lost market value on the day that the first
Toxic Release Inventory (“TRI”) numbers were made public, Konar and Cohen (1997) find that
firms with the largest stock price declines have subsequently reduced their emissions most. More
importantly, Konar and Cohen (2001) find that subsequent reductions in TRI have increased the
intangible asset value of firms. These and other similar findings raise the interesting question of
whether indirect forms of regulation such as mandatory disclosure yield positive or negative
impacts on balance.

Beyond the government, there are other actors whose policies might interact with the
regulation-innovation-competitiveness links. As mentioned above, the trend toward increased
transparency, whether through voluntary corporate reporting, quasimandatory requirements from
stock exchanges or other agencies, or third-party reporting such as the Carbon Disclosure Project
or www.scorecard.org, might reduce organizational inertia. This would appear a fruitful area for
future research.

Longitudinal Studies
As noted, one reason we might continue to see mixed results on the regulation-
competitiveness effect is the inability of previous studies to adequately capture the lag structure
of innovation. While Brunnermeier and Cohen (2003) find a positive relationship between
lagged compliance costs and innovation and Lanoie et al. (2008) find a positive relationship
between lagged regulatory stringency and productivity, most authors have relied upon
contemporaneous comparisons. Innovations might take several years to develop, and capital
expenditures are often delayed for a few years through normal budgetary cycles and building
lags. Thus, future studies that carefully examine the dynamic structure of the PH would be
welcome.

Lankoski (2010) suggests that this difference in treating lag structures was one reason
why earlier studies were more likely to reject the PH, while more recent studies appear more
favorable. However, another potential reason why more recent studies are more likely to find
positive results is simply that the world is changing over time. We have more experience with

15
Resources for the Future Ambec et al.

market-based regulation of the form advocated by Porter. Also, there is a heightened social
consciousness around sustainability, in the form of both green products and corporate social
responsibility. Thus, the “value” of improving environmental performance may have increased
over time. Capturing these effects in a longitudinal study might be difficult but could provide
some interesting insights.

Global Studies
As datasets become more global and we increase our ability to make cross-country
comparisons with meaningful detailed data, more research might focus on the competitiveness
across nations. As mentioned above, evidence is growing (but still not conclusive) that countries
with more stringent environmental regulations are less competitive in those sectors (see the
reviews in Esty 2001 and Ederington 2010). However, future research might distinguish among
command-and-control, performance-based, and market-based instruments to determine whether
the form of regulation has an impact on these findings.

7. Conclusions
Twenty years ago, by declaring that well-designed regulation could actually enhance
competitiveness, Michael Porter certainly generated enormous interest among scholars,
policymakers, businesses, and pressure groups. Indeed, much has been written about what has
since become known simply as the Porter Hypothesis (PH).

This paper has provided an overview of the key theoretical and empirical insights on the
PH to date. First, on the theoretical side, it turns out that the theoretical arguments that could
justify the PH are now more solid than they appeared at first in the heated debate that took place
in 1995 in the Journal of Economic Perspectives (Palmer et al. 1995). On the empirical side, on
one hand, the evidence about the “weak” version of the hypothesis (stricter regulation leads to
more innovation) is also fairly well established. On the other hand, the empirical evidence on the
strong version (stricter regulation enhances business performance) is mixed, with more recent
studies providing more supportive results.7
The PH raises important questions for policymakers as to how to design and implement
policies that will induce environmental innovation and how to protect and diffuse these

7 Similar conclusions are reached by Brännlund and Lundgren (2009).

16
Resources for the Future Ambec et al.

innovations among firms. More research is certainly needed to better understand the different
mechanisms at play.

By suggesting that better protection of the environment could lead to “win–win”

solutions for the whole of society, Porter has certainly opened the minds of many people, leading
to significant environmental and economic improvements, and we should thank him for that.

17
Resources for the Future Ambec et al.

References
Aghion P., M. Dewatripont, and P. Rey (1997), Corporate Governance, Competition Policy and
Industrial Policy, European Economic Review 41, 797–805.

Alpay, E., S. Buccola, and J. Kerkvliet (2002), Productivity Growth and Environmental
Regulation in Mexican and U.S. Food Manufacturing, American Journal of Agricultural
Economics 84(4), 887–901.

Ambec, S., and P. Barla (2002), A Theoretical Foundation of the Porter Hypothesis, Economics
Letters 75(3), 355–360.

Ambec, S., and P. Barla (2006), Can Environmental Regulations Be Good for Business? An
Assessment of the Porter Hypothesis, Energy Studies Review 14(2), 42–62.

Ambec, S., and P. Barla (2007), Quand la réglementation environnementale profite aux
pollueurs. Survol des fondements théoriques de l'Hypothèse de Porter, L’Actualité
économique 83(3), 399–414.

Ambec, S., and P. Lanoie (2008), Does It Pay to be Green? A Systematic Overview, Academy of
Management Perspectives 22, 45–62.

Andersen, M.S., et al. (2007), Competitiveness Effects of Environmental Tax Reforms

(COMETR): Publishable Final Report to the European Commission,
http://www2.dmu.dk/cometr/.

André J. F., P. González, and N. Portiero (2009), Strategic Quality Competition and the Porter
Hypothesis, Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 57, 182–194.

Arimura, T., A. Hibiki, and N. Johnstone (2007), An Empirical Study of Environmental R&D:
What Encourages Facilities to Be Environmentally-Innovative?, inCorporate Behaviour
and Environmental Policy, edited by N. Johnstone. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar in
association with OECD.

Arjalies, D.L., and J.P. Ponssard (2010), A Managerial Perspective on the Porter Hypothesis:
The Case of CO2 Emissions, Ecole Polytechnique, Paris, http://hal.archives-
ouvertes.fr/docs/00/44/58/47/PDF/2010-02.pdf.

Barbera, A.J., and V.D. McConnell (1990), The Impact of Environmental Regulations on
Industry Productivity: Direct and Indirect Effects, Journal of Environmental Economics
and Management 18, 50–65.

18
Resources for the Future Ambec et al.

Barla P., C. Constantatos, and M. Herrmann (2008), Environmental Regulation as a Coordination

Device for Introduction of a Green Product: The Porter’s Hypothesis Revisited,
Document de travail, Université Laval, Québec, Canada.

Berman, E., and L.T.M. Bui (2001), Environmental Regulation and Productivity: Evidence from
Oil Refineries, Review of Economics and Statistics 83(3), 498–510.

Brännlund, R., and T. Lundgren (2009), Environmental Policy without Costs? A Review of the
Porter Hypothesis, International Review of Environmental and Resource Economics 3(2),
75–117.

Brunnermeier, S.B., and M.A. Cohen (2003), Determinants of Environmental Innovation in US

Manufacturing Industries, Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 45,
278–293.

Brunnermeier, S.G., and A. Levinson (2004), Examining the Evidence on Environmental

Regulations and Industry Location, Journal of Environment & Development 13(6), 6–41.

Burtraw, D. (2000), Innovation under the Tradable Sulfur Dioxide Emission Permits Program in
the U.S. Electricity Sector, Discussion Paper 00-38, Resources for the Future (RFF),
Washington, DC.

Chowdhury, P.R. (2010), The Porter Hypothesis and Hyperbolic Discounting, Indian Statistical
Institute, www.eeri.eu/documents/wp/EERI_RP_2010_42.pdf.

Copeland, B.R., and M.S. Taylor (2004), Trade, Growth and the Environment, Journal of
Economic Literature 42, 7–71.

Crotty, J., and M. Smith (2008), Strategic Responses to Environmental Regulation in the U.K.
Automotive Sector: The European Union End-of-Life Vehicle Directive and the Porter
Hypothesis, Journal of Industrial Ecology 10(4), 95–111.

Dechezlepêtre, A., M. Glachant, and Y. Ménière (2010), What Drives the International Transfer
of Climate Change Mitigation Technlogies? Empirical Evidence from Patent Data,
CERNA working paper, Mines ParisTech.

Driesen, D. (2005), Economic Instruments for Sustainable Development, in Environmental Law

for Sustainability: A Critical Reader, edited by S. Wood and B. Richardson. Oxford, UK:
Hart Publications, Chapter 9, http://law.syr.edu/Pdfs/0osgoodehallboo.pdf.

Dufour, C., P. Lanoie, and M. Patry (1998), Regulation and Productivity, Journal of Productivity
Analysis 9, 233–247.

19
Resources for the Future Ambec et al.

Ederington, J. (2010), Should Trade Agreement Include Trade Policy ? Review of Environmental
Economics and Policy 4(1), 84–102

Esty, D. (2001), Bridging the Trade-Environment Divide. Journal of Economic Perspectives

15(3), 113–130

Esty, Daniel C., and Michael E. Porter (1998), Industrial Ecology and Competitiveness: Strategic
Implications for the Firm, Journal of Industrial Ecology 2(1), 35–44.

Esty, Daniel C., and Michael E. Porter (2002), Ranking National Environmental Regulation and
Performance: A Leading Indicator of Future Competitiveness? in The Global
Competitiveness Report 2001–2002, edited by Michael E. Porter, Jeffrey Sachs, et al.
New York: Oxford University Press, 78–100.

Esty, Daniel C., and Michael E. Porter (2005), National Environmental Performance: An
Empirical Analysis of Policy Results and Determinants, Environment and Development
Economics, 10(4).

Fare, R., S. Grosskopf, C.A.K. Lovell, and C. Pasurka (1989), Multilateral Productivity
Comparison When Some Outputs Are Undesirable: A Nonparametric Approach, Review
of Economics and Statistics 71, 90–98.

Feichtinger, G., R.F. Hartl, P.M. Kort, and V.M. Veliov (2005), Environmental Policy, the Porter
Hypothesis and the Composition of Capital: Effects of Learning and Technological
Progress, Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 50(2), 434–446.

Gabel, H.L., and B. Sinclair-Desgagné (1998), ‘The Firm, Its Routines, and the Environment, in
The International Yearbook of Environmental and Resource Economics 1998/1999: A
Survey of Current Issues, edited by H. Folmer and T. Tietenberg. Cheltenham, UK:
Edward Elgar.

Gans, J.S. (2010), Innovation and Climate Policy, University of Melbourne,

http://works.bepress.com/joshuagans/24/.

Gollop, F.M., and M.J. Roberts (1983), Environmental Regulations and Productivity Growth:
The Case of Fossil-Fuelled Electric Power Generation, Journal of Political Economy
91(4), 654–674.

Gray, W.B. (1987), The Cost of Regulation: OSHA, EPA and the Productivity Slowdown,
American Economic Review 77(5), 998–1006.

20
Resources for the Future Ambec et al.

Gray, W.B., and R.J. Shadbegian (1998), Environmental Regulation Investment Timing, and
Technology Choice, Journal of Industrial Economics 46(2), 235–256.

Gray, W.B., and R.J. Shadbegian (2003), Plant Vintage, Technology, and Environmental
Regulation, Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 46, 384–402.

Greaker, M. (2003), Strategic Environmental Policy: Eco-dumping or a Green Strategy? Journal

of Environmental Economics and Management 45(3), 692–707.

Hamilton, J.T. (1995), Pollution as News: Media and Stock Market Reactions to the Toxics
Releaase Inventory Data, Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 28, 98–
113.
Hicks, J.R. (1932), The Theory of Wages, 1st ed., London, Macmillan.

Hoglund Isaksson, L. (2005), Abatement Costs in Response to the Swedish Charge on Nitrogen
Oxide Emissions. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 50, 102–120.

Jaffe, A.B., and K. Palmer (1997), Environmental Regulation and Innovation: A Panel Data
Study, Review of Economics and Statistics 79(4), 610–619.

Jaffe,A.B., S.R. Peterson, P.R. Portneya, and R.N. Stavins, " Environmental Regulation and
International Competitiveness: What Does the Evidence Tell Us?" Discussion Paper 94-
08, Resources for the Future (1994); Journal of Economic Literature 93 (November
1996), 12, 658-12, 663.

Johnstone, N., I. Hascic, and M. Kalamova (2010a), Environmental Policy Characteristics and
Technological Innovations Economia Politica 27(2), 275–299.

Johnstone, N., I. Hascic, and D. Popp (2010b), Renewable Energy Policies and Technological
Innovation: Evidence Based on Patent Counts, Environmental and Resource Economics
45(1), 133–155.

Kennedy, Peter (1994), Innovation stochastique et coût de la réglementation environnementale,

L’Actualité économique 70(2), 199–209.

Konar, S., and M.A. Cohen (1997), Information as Regulation: The Effect of Community Right
to Know Laws on Toxic Emissions, Journal of Environmental Economics and
Management 32, 109–24.

Konar, S., and M.A. Cohen (2001), Does the Market Value Environmental Performance? Review
of Economics and Statistics 83(2), 281–89.

21
Resources for the Future Ambec et al.

Kriechel, B. , and T. Ziesemer (2009), The Environmental Porter Hypothesis: Theory, Evidence
and a Model of Timing of Adoption Economics of Innovation and New Technology 18(3),
267–294

Lanjouw, J.O., and A. Mody (1996), Innovation and the International Diffusion of
Environmentally Responsive Technology, Research Policy 25, 549–571.

Lankoski, L. (2010), Linkages between Environmental Policy and Competitiveness, OECD

Environment Working Papers No. 13, www.oecd.org/dataoecd/0/8/44392874.pdf.

Lanoie, P., J. Lucchetti, N. Johnstone, and S. Ambec (forthcoming), Environmental Policy,

Innovation and Performance: New Insights on the Porter Hypothesis, Journal of
Economics and Management Strategy.

Lanoie, P., M. Patry, and R. Lajeunesse (2008), Environmental Regulation and Productivity:
New Findings on the Porter Hypothesis, Journal of Productivity Analysis 30, 121–128.

Lyon, T. and B. Van Hoof (2009), Evaluating Mexico Green Supply Chains Program, mimeo,
University of Michigan (August).

Managi, S. (2004), Competitiveness and Environmental Policies for Agriculture: Testing the
Porter Hypothesis, International Journal of Agricultural Resources and Ecology 3(3–4),
310–324.

Maskus, K. (2010), Differentiated Intellectual Property Regimes for Environmental and Climate
Technologies, OECD Environment Working Papers No. 17, OECD Publishing,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/5kmfwjvc83vk-en.

Mohr R.D. (2002), Technical Change, External Economies, and the Porter Hypothesis, Journal
of Environmental Economics and Management 43(1), 158–168.

Mohr, R.D., and S. Saha (2008), Distribution of Environmental Costs and Benefits, Additional
Distortions and the Porter Hypothesis, Land Economics 84(4), 689–700.

Nelson R.A., T. Tietenberg, and M.R. Donihue (1993), Differential Environmental Regulation:
Effects on Electric Utility Capital Turnover and Emissions, Review of Economics and
Statistics 75(2), 368–373

Palmer, K., W.E. Oates, and P.R. Portney (1995), Tightening Environmental Standards: The
Benefit-Cost or the No-Cost Paradigm? Journal of Economic Perspectives 9(4),
119–132.

22
Resources for the Future Ambec et al.

Popp, D. (2003), Pollution Control Innovations and the Clean Air Act of 1990, Journal of Policy
Analysis and Management 22(4), 641–660.

Popp, D. (2005), Uncertain R&D and the Porter Hypothesis

www.bepress.com/bejeap/contributions/vol4/iss1/art6/.

Popp, D. (2006), International Innovation and Diffusion of Air Pollution Control Technologies:
The Effects of NOX and SO2 Regulation in the US, Japan, and Germany, Journal of
Environmental Economics and Management 51(1), 46–71.

Porter, M. (1991), America’s Green Strategy, Scientific American 264(4), 168.

Porter, M., and C. van der Linde (1995), Toward a New Conception of the Environment-
Competitiveness Relationship, Journal of Economic Perspective 9(4), 97–118.

Quiroga, M., M. Persson, and T. Sterner (2009), Do Countries with Lax Environmental
Regulations Have a Comparative Advantage in Polluting Industries? Working paper.

Rassier, D.G., and D. Earnhart (2010), The Effect of Clean Water Regulation on Profitability:
Testing the Porter Hypothesis, Land Economics 86(2), 329–344.

Repetto, Roberts, Dale Rothman, Paul Faeth, and Duncan Austin (1996), Has Environmental
Protection Really Reduced Productivity Growth?, Washington, DC: World Resources
Institute.

Rochon-Fabien, A., and P. Lanoie (2010), Promoting Pollution Prevention in Small Businesses:
Costs and Benefits of the “Enviroclub” Initiative, mimeo, HEC Montreal.

Simpson, D., and R.L. Bradford (1996), Taxing Variable Cost: Environmental Regulation as
Industrial Policy, Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 30(3), 282–300.

Smith, J.B., and W.A. Sims (1985), The Impact of Pollution Charges on Productivity Growth in
Canadian Brewing, Rand Journal of Economics 16(3), 410–423.

Wagner, M. (2006), A Comparative Analysis of Theoretical Reasoning and Empirical Studies on

the Porter Hypothesis and the Role of Innovation, mimeo, BETA, Strasbourg.

Xepapadeas, A., and A. de Zeeuw (1999), Environmental Policy and Competitiveness: The
Porter Hypothesis and the Composition of Capital, Journal of Environmental Economics
and Management 37, 165–182.

23
Resources for the Future Ambec et al.

Appendix. Theoretical and Empirical Studies on the Porter Hypothesis

Theoretical Studies on the Porter Hypothesis

STUDY  BEHAVIORAL ASSUMPTION  MAIN ARGUMENT 
Aghion et al. (1997)   Conservative managers who minimize  Environmental regulations 
Ambec and Barla (2007)   innovation efforts under the constraint  force managers to adopt 
that the firm survive tend to postpone  profitable technologies earlier  
profitable technological adoption  
Ambec and Barla (2006)  Managers with present‐biased  Environmental regulations help 
preferences tend to procrastinate  managers solve their self‐
profitable R&D investments  control problem  
Gabel and Sinclair‐Desgagné  Manager focuses on routines and  Environmental regulations 
(1998)  habits, which keeps the firm away from  force managers to reconsider 
the global optimum  their decisions  
Kennedy (1994)  Risk‐averse managers underinvest in  By increasing the return on 
risky R&D projects   R&D investments, 
environmental regulations 
bring managers closer to the 
optimal investment decision  
STUDY  MARKET OR ORGANIZATIONAL FAILURE  MAIN ARGUMENT 
Ambec and Barla (2002)  Asymmetric information within firm:  By helping firms commit on 
managers have private information  pollution reductions, the 
about the cost of new technologies   regulator reduces the 
informational rent extracted by 
managers  
André et al. (2009)  Market power with vertically  Environmental regulations help 
differentiated products on  firms coordinate on a Pareto 
environmental quality  superior equilibrium choice of 
environmental quality 
Greaker (2003)  Technological spillovers in the  Environmental regulations 
upstream pollution abatement industry  mitigate the underinvestment 
problem to the benefit of the 
downstream firm 
Mohr (2002)  Learning‐by‐doing technological  Environmental regulations 
spillovers  mitigate the underinvestment 
problem to the benefit of all 
firms  
Simpson and Bradford (1996)  Market power in an international trade  Firms facing more stringent 
model  environmental regulations 
exploit a “first‐mover 
advantage” on international 
markets  

24
Resources for the Future Ambec et al.

Empirical Studies on the Porter Hypothesis

STUDY  DATA  METHODOLOGY  MAIN RESULTS 
I. Impact of Environmental Regulations (ERs) on Innovation and Technology  
Jaffe and  ▪  Panel of U.S.  ▪  Reduced form model  ▪  R&D significantly increases 
Palmer (1997)  manufacturing  ▪  Innovation proxy: R&D investments  with ERs (elasticity: +0.15) 
industries,  and number of successful patent  ▪  No significant impact of ERs 
1973–1991  applications  on number of patents 
▪  ERs proxy: pollution control capital 
costs 
Brunnermeier  ▪  Panel of 146  ▪  Reduced form model  ▪  Small but significant impact 
and Cohen  U.S.  ▪  Innovation proxy: number of  of pollution operating cost 
(2003)  manufacturing  environmentally related successful  on number of patents 
industries,  patent applications  ▪  No impact of inspections 
1983–1992  ▪  ERs: pollution control operating 
costs and number of air and water 
pollution control inspections 
Nelson et al.  ▪  44 U.S. electric  ▪  Three‐equation model: (1) age of  ▪  ERs significantly increase age 
(1993)  utilities, 1969– capital; (2) emissions; and (3)  of capital (elasticity: +0.15) 
1983  regulatory expenditures  ▪  Age of capital has no 
▪  Model includes two ER proxies: air  statistically significant impact 
pollution cost and total pollution  on emissions 
control costs per KW capacity  ▪  Regulation has affected 
emissions levels 
Arimura et al.  ▪  Survey of 4,000  ▪  Bivariate probit model with (1)  ▪  The perceived ER stringency 
(2007)  manufacturing  environmental R&D dummy  has a positive and significant 
facilities in 7  regressed on various measures of  impact on the probability to 
OECD countries  environmental policy (perceived  run an environmental R&D 
stringency, standards, taxes), an  program 
environmental accounting dummy,  ▪  The type of ER (standard or 
and other management practices  tax) has no significant effects 
control variables; and (2)  on environmental R&D 
environmental accounting dummy 
regressed on same variables 
Popp (2003)  ▪  Patent data and  ▪  SO2 removal efficiency of new  ▪  The new SO2 emissions 
performance  scrubbers regressed on the flow of  permit regulation introduced 
measures of flue  knowledge (measured by patents)  in 1990 increased SO2 
gas  and policy variables  removal efficiency and 
desulfurization  ▪  Operating and maintenance cost of  lowered operating and 
units  scrubbers regressed on same  removal costs 
(“scrubbers”) of  variables 
186 plants in 
U.S., 1972–1997 

25
Resources for the Future Ambec et al.

Popp (2006)  ▪  Patent data  ▪  Impact of SO2 (U.S.) and NOX  ▪  ERs followed by an increase 

from the U.S.,  (Germany and Japan) ERs on  of patenting from domestic 
Japan, and  patenting and patent citations  firms but not from foreign 
Germany, 1967– ▪  ERs: timing of the introduction of  firms 
2001  new ERs  ▪  Earlier ERs for NOX in 
▪  Estimate the cross‐country  Germany and Japan are 
spillovers using patent citation  important components of 
origins  U.S. patents for pollution 
control technologies to 
reduce NOx emissions 
II. Impact of ERs on Productivity 
Gollop and  ▪  56 U.S. electric  ▪  Productivity measure: derived from  ▪  ERs reduce productivity 
Roberts  utilities, 1973– the estimation of a cost function  growth by 43% 
(1983)  1979.  that includes the ERs proxy 
▪  ERs: the intensity of SO2 
regulations based on actual 
emissions, state standard, and the 
utility estimated unconstrained 
emissions levels 
Smith and  ▪  4 Canadian beer  ▪  Productivity measure: derived from  ▪  Average productivity growth 
Sims (1985)  breweries,  the estimation of a cost function  regulated breweries –0.08% 
1971–1980.  ▪  Two breweries were submitted to  compared to +1.6% for the 
an effluent surcharge and two  unregulated plants 
breweries were not 
Gray (1987)  ▪  450 U.S.  ▪  Change in average annual total  ▪  30% of the decline in 
manufacturing  factor productivity growth between  productivity growth in the 
industries,  the 1959–1969 period and the  1970s due to ERs 
1958–1978  1973–1978 period regresses on 
pollution control operating costs. 
Barbera and  ▪  5 U.S. pollution‐ ▪  Derive the direct (abatement cost  ▪  Overall, abatement capital 
Mc Connell  intensive  growth) and indirect (changes in  requirements reduce 
(1990)  industries  other inputs and production  productivity growth by 10% 
(paper,  process) effects of pollution control  to 30% 
chemical, stone‐ capital using a cost function  ▪  Indirect effect sometimes 
clay‐glass, iron‐ approach  positive 
steel, 
nonferrous 
metals), 1960–
1980 
Dufour et al.  ▪  19 Quebec  ▪  Total factor productivity growth  ▪  ERs have a significantly 
(1998)  manufacturing  regressed on changes in the ratio  negative impact on 
industries, 1985‐ of the value of investment in  productivity growth rate 
1988.  pollution control equipment to 
total cost 

26
Resources for the Future Ambec et al.

Berman and  ▪  U.S. petroleum  ▪  Comparison of total factor  ▪  Stricter regulations imply 

Bui (2001)  refining  productivity of California South  higher abatement costs; 
industry, 1987– Coast refineries (submitted to  however, these investments 
1995  stricter air pollution regulations)  appear to increase 
with other U.S. refineries  productivity 
▪  ERs severity is measured by the 
number of environmental 
regulations each refinery is 
submitted to 
Lanoie et al.  ▪  17 Quebec  ▪  Total factor productivity growth  ▪  ERs have a significantly 
(2008)  manufacturing  regressed on lagged changes in the  positive impact on 
industries,  ratio of the value of investment in  productivity growth rate, 
1985–1994  pollution control equipment to  using lagged results, 
total cost.  especially in the sectors 
highly exposed to outside 
competition. 
Alpay et al.  ▪  Mexican and  ▪  Productivity measure obtained  ▪  US: negligible effect of ERs 
(2002)  U.S. processed  through the estimation of a profit  on both profit and 
food sectors,  function that includes pollution  productivity. 
1962–1994  abatement expenditures (US) and  ▪  Mexico: ERs have a negative 
inspection frequency (Mexico) as  impact on profits but a 
proxies for ERs.  positive impact on 
productivity. 
Gray and  ▪  116 U.S. paper  ▪  Regression of total factor  ▪  Significant reduction in 
Shadbegian  mills, 1979– productivity on pollution  productivity associated with 
(2003)  1990  abatement operating costs,  abatement efforts 
technology and vintage dummies  particularly in integrated 
and interaction terms between the  paper mills. 
dummies and the abatement 
variable. 
▪  Estimation of a production function 
that includes beside input prices, 
pollution abatement costs and 
other control variables 
Managi  ▪  U.S. state‐level  ▪  Regression analysis of Luenberger  ▪  Mixed results 
(2004)  data, 1973– productivity indexes 
1996, 
agricultural 
sector 
Crotty and  ▪  37 firms in the  ▪  Qualitative questionnaire to verify  ▪  No support for Porter 
Smith (2008)  UK automotive  the strategic response to a new  hypothesis 
sector  regulation 
Rassier and  ▪  73 U.S. chemical  ▪  Regression of returns on sales on  ▪  Tighter regulations 
Earnhart  firms, 1995– permitted wastewater discharge  meaningfully lower 
(2010)  2001  limits  profitability 

27
Resources for the Future Ambec et al.

Lanoie et al.  ▪  4,200  ▪ Mail survey  ▪  Tighter ER increases R&D, 

(2010)  manufacturing  ▪ Three equations estimated with  which improves business 
facilities in 7  dependent variables: (1) presence of  performance; however, 
OECD countries,  environmental R&D, (2)  direct effect of ER is 
2003  environmental performance, (3)  negative, and combined 
business performance  impact is negative 
▪ Key independent variables include  (innovation offsets do not 
perceived regulatory stringency and  offset cost of ER) 
policy mechanisms 
  
 

28