Annals of Operations Research

, Volume 255, Issue 1–2, pp 47–61 | Cite as

EU Emissions Trading Scheme, competitiveness and carbon leakage: new evidence from cement and steel industries

  • Mohamed Amine Boutabba
  • Sandrine Lardic
S.I.: Energy and Climate Policy Modeling


The European Union Emissions Trading Scheme (EU ETS) is the world’s first large implementation of a \(\hbox {CO}_{2}\) cap-and-trade system. The possibility that the EU ETS would have adverse effects on sectoral competitiveness is a major concern of policy-makers and industry. This paper analyses whether and to what extent cement and steel industries are exposed to carbon leakage. Prior studies focused on ex-post EU ETS analysis without taking structural breaks into account. Considering this gap in the literature, the present study attempts to provide new empirical evidence on the risk of carbon leakage under the EU ETS. Using rolling cointegration approach, our estimation results reveal that the impact of EU ETS on these two industries varies over time. Indeed, carbon price affects positively the net imports of cement and steel sectors over multiple subperiods, suggesting that these two industries are affected by a negligible carbon leakage and competitiveness losses. However, results reveal that the steel sector is more affected than the cement sector. Policy makers and industry could benefit from the findings of this study that provides a broader understanding of the future role of the EU ETS.


EU ETS Competitiveness Carbon leakage Rolling cointegration 



The authors are grateful to three anonymous reviewers for their valuable comments and suggestions.


  1. Abrell, J., Faye A. N., & Zachmann G. (2011). Assessing the impact of the EU ETS using firm level data. Bruegel Working Paper.Google Scholar
  2. Anger, N., & Oberndorfer, U. (2008). Firm performance and employment in the EU emissions trading scheme: An empirical assessment for Germany. Energy Policy, 36(1), 12–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Babiker, M. H. (2005). Climate change policy, market structure, and carbon leakage. Journal of International Economics, 65(2), 421–445.Google Scholar
  4. Banerjee, A., Dolado, J. J., Galbraith, J. W., & Hendry, D. F. (1993). Co-integration, error correction, and the econometric analysis of non-stationary data, advanced texts in econometrics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Böhringer, C., Balistreri, E. J., & Rutherford, T. F. (2012). The role of border carbon adjustment in unilateral climate policy: Overview of an Energy Modeling Forum study (EMF 29). Energy Economics, 34, (Supp 2), S97–S110.Google Scholar
  6. Branger, B., Quirion, P., & Chevallier, J. (2013). Carbon leakage and competitiveness of cement and steel industries under the EU ETS: Much ado about nothing. DT/WP No 2013-53.2013. \({<}\)hal-00945187\({>}\) Google Scholar
  7. Bredin, D., & Muckley, C. (2011). An emerging equilibrium in the EU emissions trading scheme. Energy Economics, 33(2), 353–362.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Carbon Trust. (2004). The European emissions trading scheme: Implications for industrial competitiveness. UK: Carbon Trust.Google Scholar
  9. Chan, H. S., Li, S., & Zhang, F. (2013). Firm competitiveness and the European Union emissions trading scheme. Energy Policy, 63, 1056–1064.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Convery, F., Ellerman, D., & de Perthuis, C. (2008). The European carbon market in action: Lessons from the first trading period, MIT Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change, Interim Report, Report No. 162. Cambridge, MA: MIT.Google Scholar
  11. Creti, A., Jouvet, P. A., & Mignon, V. (2012). Carbon price drivers: Phase I versus Phase II equilibrium? Energy Economics, 34(1), 327–334.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Demailly, D., & Quirion, P. (2006). \(\text{ CO }_{2}\) abatement, competitiveness and leakage in the European cement industry under the EU ETS: Grandfathering versus output-based allocation. Climate Policy, 6(1), 93–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Demailly, D., & Quirion, P. (2008). European emission trading scheme and competitiveness: A case study on the iron and steel industry. Energy Economics, 30(4), 2009–2027.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Elliott, G., Rothenber, T. J., & Stock, J. H. (1996). Efficient tests for an autoregressive unit root. Econometrica, 64, 813–836.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Ellerman, D., Convery, F., & de Perthuis, C. (2010). Pricing carbon: The European Union Emissions Trading Scheme. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press Edition.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. IISI (2014). Steel Statistical Yearbook 2008. Worldsteel Committee on Economic Studies, International Iron and Steel Institute (IISI), Brussels, Belgium.Google Scholar
  17. IEA/WBCSD. (2009). Cement Technology Roadmap 2009: Carbon emissions reductions up to 2050: Technology Roadmaps. Paris: International Energy Agency and World Business Council on Sustainable Development.Google Scholar
  18. Inder, B. (1993). Estimating long-run relationships in economics: A comparison of different approaches. Journal of Econometrics, 57, 53–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. JRC-SETIS Work Group, European Commission. (2013). Technology Map of the European Strategic Energy Technology Plan (SET-Plan), Euro-Report EUR 26345. ISBN 978-92-79-34720-7Google Scholar
  20. Kwiatkowski, D., Phillips, P. C. B., Schmidt, P., & Shin, Y. (1992). Testing the null hypothesis of stationary against the alternative of a unit root. How sure are we that economic time series have a unit root? Journal of Econometrics, 54, 159–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. MacKinnon, J. G. (1991). Critical values for cointegration tests. In R. F. Engle & C. W. J. Granger (Eds.), Long-run economic relationships (pp. 267–276). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  22. Mansanet-Bataller, M., & Pardo, A. (2008). CO\(_{2}\) Prices and Portfolio Management, Working Paper, Department of Financial Economics, University of Valencia.Google Scholar
  23. McKinsey & Company, Ecofys (2006). EU ETS review: Report on international competitiveness. Belgium: European Commission Directorate General of Environment.Google Scholar
  24. Meunier, G., & Ponssard, J. P. (2014). Capacity decisions with demand fluctuations and carbon leakage. Resource and Energy Economics, 36(2), 436–454.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Monjon, S., & Quirion, P. (2011). A border adjustment for the EU ETS: Reconciling WTO rules and capacity to tackle carbon leakage. Climate Policy, 11(5), 1212–1225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Phillips, P. C. B., & Hansen, B. E. (1990). Statistical inference in instrumental variables regression with I(1) processes. The Review of Economic Studies, 57, 99–125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Ponssard, J.-P., & Walker, N. (2008). EU emissions trading and the cement sector: A spatial competition analysis. Climate Policy, 8(5), 467–493.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Reinaud, J. (2005). Industrial competitiveness under the European Union emissions trading scheme. IEA Information Paper.Google Scholar
  29. Reinaud, J. (2008). Climate policy and carbon leakage. Impacts of the European emissions trading scheme on aluminium. IEA information paper, IEA.Google Scholar
  30. Sartor, O. (2012). Carbon leakage in the primary aluminium sector: What evidence after 6.5 years of the EU ETS? CDC Climat Research Working paper no. 2012–12.Google Scholar
  31. USGS. (2014). Mineral Resources Program 2011. United States Geological Survey (USGS), Reston, VA.
  32. Vivid Economics & Ecofys. (2014). Carbon leakage prospects under Phase III of the EU ETS, report prepared for DECC, June 2014Google Scholar
  33. Zivot, E., & Andrews, D. W. K. (1992). Further evidence on the great crash, the oil price shock and the unit root hypothesis. Journal of Business and Economic Statistics, 10, 251–270.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.EPEEUniversité d’Evry-Val d’EssonneEvry CedexFrance
  2. 2.EDHENUniversité du HavreLe Havre CedexFrance

Personalised recommendations