Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Carbon emission trading policy and corporate green innovation: internal incentives or external influences

  • Research Article
  • Published:
Environmental Science and Pollution Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

A Correction to this article was published on 14 April 2023

This article has been updated

Abstract

The carbon emission trading policy (CETP) is a market-based environmental instrument to reduce carbon emissions and address climate change. It can further have an impact on companies’ green innovation (GI). In this regard, we innovatively propose the internal and external theoretical mechanisms of the impact of CETP on the GI of companies and use the financial data and patent data of Chinese listed companies from a micro perspective to empirically verify them. The findings demonstrate that the CETP has an inducing effect on the GI of companies, which is particularly evident in nonstate-owned companies, large companies, and the cleaning industry. The impact of CETP on companies GI is mainly achieved through internal incentive mechanisms, while the role of external influence mechanisms is not obvious. In terms of internal incentives, cost compliance effects and innovation compensation effects are the main channels for promoting GI. In terms of external effects, the carbon market’s efficacy has not contributed to boosting GI for companies; the coordination effect of carbon policy and government intervention on companies’ GI is also limited. Our research provides a theoretical basis for effectively encouraging the GI of companies to achieve carbon neutral and carbon peak goals.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7

Similar content being viewed by others

Availability of data and materials

The datasets used and/or analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Change history

Notes

  1. Chongqing may have some companies that would otherwise be in the experimental group sample due to the missing list of pilot companies; however, according to the analysis report of China Carbon Market 2015, Chongqing has a low compliance rate and a serious surplus of quotas and is less motivated to trade carbon, so the exclusion of Chongqing as a pilot has little impact on the estimation results of this paper.

  2. http://www.pkulaw.com.

  3. Three waste means wastewater, solid waste, and waste gas from industry.

  4. The 17 polluting industries are chemical raw materials and chemical products manufacturing, the ferrous metal smelting and rolling processing industry, nonferrous metal smelting and rolling processing industry, paper and paper products industry, pharmaceutical manufacturing, chemical fiber manufacturing, the oil and gas extraction industry, nonmetallic mineral products industry, nonferrous metal ore mining, construction decoration and other construction industry, textile clothing, the apparel industry, rubber and plastic products industry, coal mining and washing industry, petroleum processing, the coking and nuclear fuel processing industry, metal products industry, ferrous metal ore mining industry, and textile industry.

  5. According to the Southern Metropolis Daily, compared to the international carbon market, China’s carbon pilot prices are generally low. As of April 29, 2021, the Chinese carbon pilot price was between $5.53 and 42.02/ton, while the EUA carbon quota spot settlement price was $380/ton on the same day, which is 9–68 times higher than the Chinese carbon pilot price.

References

  • Acemoglu D, Aghion P, Bursztyn L, Hemous D (2012) The environment and directed technical change. Am Econ Rev 102(1):131–166

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Albino V, Ardito L, Dangelico RM, Petruzzelli AM (2014) Understanding the development trends of low-carbon energy technologies: a patent analysis. Appl Energy 135:836–854

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ambec S, Cohen MA, Elgie S, Lanoie P (2013) The porter hypothesis at 20: can environmental regulation enhance innovation and competitiveness. Rev Env Econ Policy 7(1):2–22

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bai Y, Song S, Jiao J, Yang R (2019) The impacts of government R&D subsidies on green innovation: evidence from Chinese energy-intensive firms. J Clean Prod 233:819–829

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baranzini A, Van den Bergh JC, Carattini S, Howarth RB, Padilla E, Roca J (2017) Carbon pricing in climate policy: seven reasons, complementary instruments, and political economy considerations. Wires Clim Change 8(4):e462

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barney J (1991) Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. J Manage 17(1):99–120

    Google Scholar 

  • Bel G, Joseph S (2018) Policy stringency under the European Union Emission trading system and its impact on technological change in the energy sector. Energy Policy 117:434–444

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berrone P, Fosfuri A, Gelabert L, Gomez-Mejia LR (2013) Necessity as the mother of green inventions: institutional pressures and environmental innovations. Strateg Manage J 34(8):891–909

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brown JR, Petersen F (2009) Financing innovation and growth: cash flow, external equity, and the 1990s R&D boom. J Finance 64(1):151–185

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brunnermeier SB, Cohen MA (2003) Determinants of environmental innovation in US manufacturing industries. J Environ Econ Manage 45(2):278–293

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chang K, Lu S, Song X (2018b) The impacts of liquidity dynamics on emissions allowances price: different evidence from China’s emissions trading pilots. J Clean Prod 183:786–796

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chang K, Ge F, Zhang C, Wang W (2018a). The dynamic linkage effect between energy and emissions allowances price for regional emissions trading scheme pilots in China. Renew Sust Energ Rev: 415–425

  • Chen Z, Zhang X, Chen F (2021) Do carbon emission trading schemes stimulate green innovation in enterprises? Evidence from China. Technol Forecast Soc Change 168:120744

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clarkson PM, Li Y, Richardson GD (2004) The market valuation of environmental capital expenditures by pulp and paper companies. The Accounting Rev 79(2):329–353

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dong F, Dai Y, Zhang S, Zhang X, Long R (2019) Can a carbon emission trading scheme generate the Porter effect? Evidence from pilot areas in China. Sci Total Environ 653:565–577

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Fama EF (1970) Efficient capital markets: a review of theory and empirical work. J Finance 25(2):383–417

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fama EF, French KR (1993) Common risk factors in the returns on stocks and bonds. J Financ Econ 33(1):3–56

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fang G, Gao Z, Tian L, Fu M (2022a) What drives urban carbon emission efficiency? -spatial analysis based on nighttime light data. Appl Energy 312:118772

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fang G, Wang L, Gao Z, Chen J, Tian L (2022b). How to advance China’s carbon emission peak? - a comparative analysis of energy transition in China and the USA. Environ Sci Pollut Res: 1–15

  • Fang G, Yang K, Tian L, Ma Y (2022c). Can environmental tax promote renewable energy consumption? - an empirical study from the typical countries along the Belt and Road. Energy: 125193

  • Feng C, Shi B, Kang R (2017) Does environmental policy reduce enterprise innovation?—evidence from China. Sustainability 9(6):872

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Florackis C, Gregoriou A, Kostakis A (2011) Trading frequency and asset pricing on the London Stock Exchange: evidence from a new price impact ratio. J Bank Financ 35(12):3335–3350

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ford JA, Steen J, Verreynne ML (2014) How environmental regulations affect innovation in the Australian oil and gas industry: going beyond the Porter Hypothesis. J Clean Prod 84:204–213

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fu J, Zhang Y, Xie Z (2017) Does the mechanism design influence carbon market’s liquidity? -a research based on China’s pilot regions. Finance Trade Econ 38(8):129–143 (in Chinese)

    Google Scholar 

  • Gray WB (1987) The cost of regulation: OSHA, EPA and the productivity slowdown. Am Econ Rev 77(5):998–1006

    Google Scholar 

  • Gray WB, Shadbegian RJ (2003) Plant vintage, technology, and environmental regulation. J Environ Econ Manage 46(3):384–402

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grossman GM, Helpman E (2018) Growth, trade, and inequality. Econometrica 86(1):37–83

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gupeng Z, Xiangdong C (2012) The value of invention patents in China: country origin and technology field differences. China Econ Rev 23(2):357–370

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Han M, Ding L, Zhao X, Kang W (2019). Forecasting carbon prices in the Shenzhen market, China: the role of mixed-frequency factors. Energy: 69–76

  • He W, Tan L, Liu ZJ, Zhang H (2020) Property rights protection, environmental regulation and corporate financial performance: revisiting the Porter hypothesis. J Clean Prod 264:121615

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hu J, Pan X, Huang Q (2020a) Quantity or quality? The impacts of environmental regulation on firms’ innovation–Quasi-natural experiment based on China’s carbon emissions trading pilot. Technol Forecast Soc Chang 158:120122

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hu Y, Ren S, Wang Y, Chen X (2020b) Can carbon emission trading scheme achieve energy conservation and emission reduction? Evidence from the industrial sector in China. Energ Econ 85:104590

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jaffe AB, Palmer K (1997) Environmental regulation and innovation: a panel data study. Rev Econ Stat 79:610–619

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kalaitzoglou IA, Ibrahim BM (2015) Liquidity and resolution of uncertainty in the European carbon futures market. Int Rev Financ Anal 37:89–102

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kathuria V (2006) Controlling water pollution in developing and transition countries—lessons from three successful cases. J Environ Manage 78(4):405–426

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Keohane N, Petsonk A, Hanafi A (2017) Toward a club of carbon markets. Clim Change 144:81–95

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Kneller R, Manderson E (2012) Environmental regulations and innovation activity in UK manufacturing industries. Resour Energy Econ 34:211–235

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Laffont JJ, Tirole J (1996) Pollution permits and environmental innovation. J Public Econ 62:127–140

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lanoie P, Patry M, Lajeunesse R (2008) Environmental regulation and productivity: testing the Porter hypothesis. J Prod Anal 30(2):121–128

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lanzi E, Chateau J, Dellink R (2012) Alternative approaches for levelling carbon prices in a world with fragmented carbon markets. Energy Econ 34:S240–S250

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee KH, Min B (2015) Green R&D for eco-innovation and its impact on carbon emissions and firm performance. J Clean Prod 108:534–542

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Lee J, Veloso FM, Hounshell DA (2011) Linking induced technological change, and environmental regulation: evidence from patenting in the US auto industry. Resour Policy 40:1240–1252

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leyva-de la Hiz DI (2019) Environmental innovations and policy network styles: the influence of pluralism and corporativism. J Clean Prod 232:839–847

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Li L, Tao F (2012) Selection of optimal environmental regulation intensity for Chinese manufacturing industry-based on the green TFP perspective. China Ind Econ 5(5):70–82

    Google Scholar 

  • Li B, Gasser T, Ciais P, Piao S, Tao S, Balkanski Y, Zhou F (2016) The contribution of China’s emissions to global climate forcing. Nature 7594:357–361

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Liu L, Chen C, Zhao Y, Zhao E (2015a) China׳ s carbon-emissions trading: overview, challenges and future. Renew Sust Energ Rev 49:254–266

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Liu Z, Guan D, Wei W, Davis SJ, Ciais P, Bai J, He K (2015b) Reduced carbon emission estimates from fossil fuel combustion and cement production in China. Nature 7565:335–338

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Liu X, Jin Z (2020). An analysis of the interactions between electricity, fossil fuel and carbon market prices in Guangdong, China. Energy Sustain Dev: 82–94

  • Lv M, Bai M (2021) Evaluation of China’s carbon emission trading policy from corporate innovation. Finance Res Lett 39:101565

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lyu X, Shi A, Wang X (2020) Research on the impact of carbon emission trading system on low-carbon technology innovation. Carbon Manag 11(2):183–193

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Ma J, Hu Q, Shen W, Wei X (2021) Does the low-carbon city pilot policy promote green technology innovation? Based on green patent data of Chinese A-share listed companies. Int J Environ Res Public Health 18(7):3695

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Manso G (2011) Motivating innovation. J. Finance 66(5):1823–1860

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Matthews RC, Denison EF (1981) Accounting for slower economic growth: the United States in the 1970s. Econ J 91:1044–1046

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Metz B, Davidson OR, Bosch PR, Dave R, Meyer LA (2007) Contribution of working group III to the fourth assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Montmartin B, Herrera M (2015) Internal and external effects of R&D subsidies and fiscal incentives: empirical evidence using spatial dynamic panel models. Res Policy 44(5):1065–1079

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ooba M, Hayashi K, Fujii M, Fujita T, Machimura T, Matsui T (2015) A long-term assessment of ecological-economic sustainability of woody biomass production in Japan. J Clean Prod 88:318–325

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pearce D, Palmer C (2010) Public and private spending for environmental protection: a cross-country policy analysis. Fisc Stud 22:403–456

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peng J, Xie R, Ma C, Fu Y (2021) Market-based environmental regulation and total factor productivity: evidence from Chinese enterprises. Econ Model 95:394–407

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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. J Environ Econ Manage 51(1):46–71

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Porter ME (1991) America’s green strategy. Sci Am 264:168

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Porter ME, Van der Linde C (1995) Toward a new conception of the environment-competitiveness relationship. J Econ Pers 9:97–118

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Przychodzen W, Przychodzen J (2018). Sustainable innovations in the corporate sector: the empirical evidence from IBEX 35 firms. J Clean Prod 172: 3557e3566

  • Qi G, Jia Y, Zou H (2021) Is institutional pressure the mother of green innovation? Examining the moderating effect of absorptive capacity. J Clean Prod 278:123957

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ramanathan R, Black A, Nath P, Muyldermans L (2010) Impact of environmental regulations on innovation and performance in the UK industrial sector. Manage Decis 48(10):1493–1513

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • P, Del Río González (2009) The empirical analysis of the determinants for environmental technological change: a research agenda. Ecol Econ 68(3):861–878

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rubashkina Y, Galeotti M, Verdolini E (2015) Environmental regulation and competitiveness: empirical evidence on the Porter hypothesis from European manufacturing sectors. Energy Policy 83:288–300

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shen C, Li S, Wang X, Liao Z (2020) The effect of environmental policy tools on regional green innovation: evidence from China. J Clean Prod 254:120122

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Soltmann C, Stucki T, Woerter M (2015) The impact of environmentally friendly innovations on value added. Environ Resour Econ 62(3):457–479

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stiglitz JE (2015) Leaders and followers: perspectives on the Nordic model and the economics of innovation. J Public Econ 127:3–16

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sun LY, Miao CL, Yang L (2017) Ecological-economic efficiency evaluation of green technology innovation in strategic emerging industries based on entropy weighted TOPSIS method. Ecol Indic 73:554–558

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tang L, Wu J, Yu L, Bao Q (2015) Carbon emissions trading scheme exploration in China: a multi-agent-based model. Energy Policy 81:152–169

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Walley N, B, Whitehead, (1994) It’s not easy being green. Harv Bus Rev 72(3):46–51

    Google Scholar 

  • Wang J (2013) The economic impact of special economic zones: evidence from Chinese municipalities. J Dev Econ 101:133–147

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wang X, Zou H (2018) Study on the effect of wind power industry policy types on the innovation performance of different ownership enterprises: evidence from China. Energy Policy 122:241–252

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wang H, Chen Z, Wu X, Nie X (2019) Can a carbon trading system promote the transformation of a low-carbon economy under the framework of the porter hypothesis? - empirical analysis based on the PSM-DID method. Energy Policy 129:930–938

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wen F, Zhao L, He S, Yang G (2020). Asymmetric relationship between carbon emission trading market and stock market: evidences from China. Energy Econ (91): Article 104850

  • Xie RH, Yuan YJ, Huang JJ (2017) Different types of environmental regulations and heterogeneous influence on “green” productivity: evidence from China. Ecol Econ 132:104–112

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Xu W, Fei W (2019) No resource or no motivation? Government subsidies, green innovation and incentive strategy selection. Sci Res Manage 40(7):131

    Google Scholar 

  • Xu WQ, Wan B, Zhu TY, Shao MP (2016) CO2 emissions from China’s iron and steel industry. J Clean Prod 139:1504–1511

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Yanni He (2022) Impact and mechanism of carbon trading market on firms’ innovation strategies. China J Popul Resour Environ 32(7):37–48 (in Chinese)

    Google Scholar 

  • Yao S, Yu X, Yan S, Wen S (2021) Heterogeneous emission trading schemes and green innovation. Energy Policy 155:112367

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Zhang S, Jiang K, Wang L, Bongers G, Hu G, Li J (2020a) Do the performance and efficiency of China’s carbon emission trading market change over time? Environ Sci Pollut Res 27(26):33140–33160

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Zhang YF, Li S, Luo TY, Gao J (2020b) The effect of emission trading policy on carbon emission reduction: evidence from an integrated study of pilot regions in China. J Clean Prod 265:121843

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Zhang YJ, Shi W, Jiang L (2020c) Does China’s carbon emissions trading policy improve the technology innovation of relevant enterprises? Bus Strategy Environ 29(3):872–885

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhang W, Li G, Guo F (2022) Does carbon emissions trading promote green technology innovation in China? Appl Energy 315:119012

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Zhao X, Sun B (2016) The influence of Chinese environmental regulation on corporation innovation and competitiveness. J Clean Prod 112:1528–1536

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhao XG, Jiang GW, Nie D, Chen H (2016) How to improve the market efficiency of carbon trading: a perspective of China. Renew Sust Energ 59:1229–1245

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhao X, Wu G, L, Li A, (2017) Research on the efficiency of carbon trading market in China. Renew Sust Energ Rev 79:1–8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhou B, Zhang C, Song H, Wang Q (2019) How does emission trading reduce China’s carbon intensity? An exploration using a decomposition and difference-in-differences approach. Sci Total Environ 676:514–523

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Zhou K, Li Y (2019). Influencing factors and fluctuation characteristics of China’s carbon emission trading price. Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications: 459–474

  • Zhu J, Fan Y, Deng X, Xue L (2019) Low-carbon innovation induced by emissions trading in China. Nat Commun 10(1):1–8

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

This research was supported by the National Social Science Foundation Project of China "Study on the Impact Mechanism and Policy Optimization of the Construction of Free Trade Areas on China's Carbon Emissions" (NSSF Projects No. 22CJY053).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of International and Economics, Business and Economics, University of International, Beijing, 100029, China

    Siqi Wu

  2. School of Economics and Management, Shandong University of Science and Technology, Qingdao, 266590, China

    Yue Qu

  3. Academy of Global Innovation and Governance, Business and Economics, University of International, Beijing, 100029, China

    Haigang Huang & Youfu Xia

Authors
  1. Siqi Wu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Yue Qu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Haigang Huang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Youfu Xia
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

Conceptualization, S.W. and Y.Q.; methodology, S.W. and Y.Q.; software, S.W.; validation, S.W. and Y.Q.; formal analysis, S.W.; investigation, S.W.; resources, S.W.; data curation, Y.Q.; writing—original draft preparation, S.W.; writing—review and editing, S.W., Y.Q., H.H., and Y.X.; visualization, S.W.; supervision, Y.Q., H.H., and Y.X.; project administration, Y.Q.; funding acquisition, Y.Q. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Yue Qu.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

This is not applicable.

Consent for publication

This is not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Additional information

Responsible Editor:  Roula Inglesi-Lotz

Publisher's note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Wu, S., Qu, Y., Huang, H. et al. Carbon emission trading policy and corporate green innovation: internal incentives or external influences. Environ Sci Pollut Res 30, 31501–31523 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-022-24351-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-022-24351-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation