Abstract
The production and manufacturing sector is one of the primary factors that affects the environment, which has been a very important topic of recent studies. Many approaches are employed to reduce the impact of production on the environment. More recently, carbon-abatement technology and activities have been introduced into the production processes to reduce carbon emissions, such as the implementation of emission trading programs in many industrial sectors, including the paper and pulp sector. Nevertheless, the costs of abatement activities will result in a certain level of sacrifice in productivity growth, when the inputs are reallocated from good output production to abatement activities to maintain bad output under the regulatory limit. However, how and the extent to which such technology will affect productivity remain unclear. Therefore, it is worth investigating the opportunity cost of introducing such technology. In this paper, we offer new empirical evidence by studying panel data on 17 EU member states from 1995 to 2006. Productivity changes are calculated using a data envelopment directional distance function with and without adapting the carbon-abatement technology in the paper and pulp production. The results support our concern about the potential opportunity cost of introducing carbon-abatement technology, which leads to a decline in productivity growth. In addition, industrial production is not operating efficiently; on average it moves further away from the efficient production frontier over time.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
See Färe and Primont (1995) for a discussion.
The usual strong disposability of good outputs condition: \( \left( {y,b} \right) \in P\left( x \right)\, {\text{and }}\,y^{\prime} \le y \,{\text{imply}}\,\left( {y^{\prime},b} \right) \in P\left( x \right) \) This condition implies that a reduction of the good outputs is feasible without a simultaneous reduction of the bad outputs.
See Shephard and Färe (1974).
See Shephard (1970).
See Krautzberger and Wetzel (2012) for a similar approach.
As noted by Shestalova (2003), technological regress can be reasonably explained for sectors such as mining, whereas in most industrial sectors technology progresses or at least remains unchanged. In the paper and pulp manufacturing sector, we expect a technological progress in the EU27 countries.
Note that if the observed data for observation \( k^{\prime} \) in period \( t + 1 \) are located above the frontier in period \( t \) the linear program for the mixed period directional distance function \( \vec{D}_{o}^{t} \left( {t + 1} \right) \) yields an infeasible solution.
Note that the derectional distance function for Model 2 is \( \vec{D}_{o}^{t} \left( {x^{{t,k^{\prime}}} ,y^{{t,k^{\prime}}} , 0;y^{{t,k^{\prime}}} ,0} \right) = \hbox{max} \theta \) in which the bad outputs are excluded. That means the linear programming is to optimize solely the good outputs for given inputs.
Switzerland and the nine other member states of the European Union could not be included in the analysis because of missing data.
GDP deflators are used due to incomplete industry-specific deflators in the OECD Structural Analysis database.
This variable choice follows the gross output concept of productivity measurement appropriate when analysing firm or industry level data. For a detailed comparison of gross output based and value-added based productivity measures see the “OECD Manual on Measuring Productivity” (OECD 2001).
The 5% depreciation rate is a country average derived from diverse sources such as Abadir and Talmain (2008). Testing the robustness of our estimations, we also applied a 3% and a 10% depreciation rate. The results reveal no significant differences. The information on the gross fixed capital formation was drawn from the STAN.
NACE stands for ‘Nomenclature statistique des activités économiques dans la Communauté européenne’.
All reported indices are geometric means. Please refer Sect. 2 for an economic interpretation.
References
Abadir, K., & Talmain, G. (2008). Depreciation rates and capital stocks. The Manchester School, 69(1), 42–51.
Aiken, D. V., Färe, R., Grosskopf, S., & Pasurka, C. A. (2009). Pollution abatement and productivity growth: Evidence from Germany, Japan, the Netherlands, and the United States. Environmental & Resource Economics, 44(1), 11–28.
Arabi, B., Doraisamy, S. M., Emrouznejad, A., & Khoshroo, A. (2017). Eco-efficiency measurement and material balance principle: an application in power plants Malmquist Luenberger index. Annals of Operations Research, 255(1–2), 221–239.
Asif, M., Muneer, T., & Kelley, R. (2007). Life cycle assessment: A case study of a dwelling home in Scotland. Building and Environment, 42(3), 1391–1394.
Barla, P. (2007). ISO 14001 certification and environmental performance in Quebec’s pulp and paper industry. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 53(3), 291–306.
Beamon, B. M. (1999). Designing the green supply chain. Logistics Information Management, 12(4), 332–342.
Carlsson, D., D’Amours, S., Martel, A., & Rönnqvist, M. (2009). Supply chain planning models in the pulp and paper industry. INFOR: Information Systems and Operational Research, 47(3), 167–183.
Chambers, R. G., Chung, Y., & Färe, R. (1996a). Benefit and distance functions. Journal of Economic Theory, 70(2), 407–419.
Chambers, R. G., Chung, Y., & Färe, R. (1998). Profit, directional distance functions, and Nerlovian efficiency. Journal of Optimization Theory and Applications, 98(2), 351–364.
Chambers, R. G., Färe, R., & Grosskopf, S. (1996b). Productivity growth in APEC countries. Pacific Economic Review, 1(3), 181–190.
Chan, H. K., Wang, X., White, G. R. T., & Yip, N. (2013). An extended fuzzy-AHP approach for the evaluation of green product designs. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 60(2), 327–339.
Chan, H. K., Yee, R. W. Y., Dai, J., & Lim, M. K. (2016). The moderating effect of environmental dynamism on green product innovation and performance. International Journal of Production Economics, 181(Part B), 384–391.
Chen, J., & Xiang, D. (2018). Carbon efficiency and carbon abatement costs of coal-fired power enterprises: A case of Shanghai, China. Journal of Cleaner Production. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.09.087.
Chung, Y. H., Färe, R., & Grosskopf, S. (1997). Productivity and undesirable outputs: A directional distance function approach. Journal of Environmental Management, 51(3), 229–240.
Clift, R., & Wright, L. (2000). Relationships between environmental impacts and added value along the supply chain. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 65(3), 281–295.
Cooper, J. S., & Fava, J. A. (2008). Life-cycle assessment practitioner survey: Summary of results. Journal of Industrial Ecology, 10(4), 12–14.
Eurostat. (2011). What are AEA and what are they for? https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/environment/emissions-of-greenhouse-gases-and-air-pollutants/air-emissions-accounts. Accessed 18 Dec 2018.
Färe, R., Grosskopf, S., & Pasurka, C. A. (2001). Accounting for air pollution emissions in measures of state manufacturing productivity growth. Journal of Regional Science, 41(3), 381–409.
Färe, R., Grosskopf, S., & Pasurka, C. A. (2007a). Environmental production functions and environmental directional distance functions. Energy, 32(7), 1055–1066.
Färe, R., Grosskopf, S., & Pasurka, C. A. (2007b). Pollution abatement activities and traditional productivity. Ecological Economics, 62(3–4), 673–682.
Färe, R., & Primont, D. (1995). Multi-Output Production and Duality: Theory and Applications. Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Hailu, A., & Veeman, T. S. (2000). Environmentally sensitive productivity analysis of the Canadian pulp and paper industry, 1959–1994: An input distance function approach. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 40(3), 251–274.
Handfield, R. B., Walton, S. V., Seegers, L. K., & Melnyk, S. A. (1998). Green’ value chain practices in the furniture industry. Journal of Operations Management, 15(4), 293–315.
Hawkins, T., Hendrickson, C., Higgins, C., Matthews, H. S., & Suh, S. (2007). A mixed-unit input-output model for environmental life-cycle assessment and material flow analysis. Environmental Science and Technology, 41(3), 1024–1031.
Hsu, C.-C., & Lo, S.-L. (2017). The potential for carbon abatement in Taiwan’s steel industry and an analysis of carbon abatement trends. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 69, 1312–1323.
Huang, Y., Liu, L., Ma, X., & Pan, X. (2015). Abatement technology investment and emissions trading system: a case of coal-fired power industry of Shenzhen, China. Clean Technologies and Environmental Policy, 17(3), 811–817.
Kainuma, Y., & Tawara, N. (2006). A multiple attribute utility theory approach to lean and green supply chain management. International Journal of Production Economics, 101(1), 99–108.
Koroneos, C., Roumbas, G., Gabari, Z., Papagiannidou, E., & Moussiopoulos, N. (2005). Life cycle assessment of beer production in Greece. Journal of Cleaner Production, 13(4), 433–439.
Krautzberger, L., & Wetzel, H. (2012). Transport and CO2: Productivity growth and Carbon Dioxide Emissions in the European commercial transport industry. Environmental & Resource Economics, 53, 435–454.
Lamming, R., & Hampson, J. (1996). The environment as a supply chain management issue. British Journal of Management, 7(s1), S45–S62.
Lopes, E., Dias, A., Arroja, L., Capela, I., & Pereira, F. (2003). Application of life cycle assessment to the Portuguese pulp and paper industry. Journal of Cleaner Production, 11(1), 51–59.
Mo, J. L., Schleich, J., & Fan, Y. (2018). Getting ready for future carbon abatement under uncertainty–key factors driving investment with policy implications. Energy Economics, 70, 453–464.
OECD. (2001). Measuring productivity – OECD manual: Measurement of aggregate and industry-level productivity growth. https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/industry-and-services/measuring-productivity-oecd-manual_9789264194519-en. Accessed 18 Dec 2018.
OECD. (2011a). STAN industry ISIC rev. 3 (2011 edition). https://doi.org/10.1787/data-00029-en. Accessed 18 Dec 2018.
OECD. (2011b). Purchasing power parities for GDP 2011. In Economics: Key tables from OECD. https://doi.org/10.1787/2074384x-2011-table11. Accessed 18 Dec 2018.
Oh, D.-H., & Heshmati, A. (2010). A sequential Malmquist-Luenberger productivity index: environmentally sensitive productivity growth considering the progressive nature of technology. Energy Economics, 32(6), 1345–1355.
Peng, J., Yu, B.-Y., Liao, H., & Wei, Y.-M. (2018). Marginal abatement costs of CO2 emissions in the thermal power sector: a regional empirical analysis from China. Journal of Cleaner Production, 171, 163–174.
Pokhrel, D., & Viraraghavan, T. (2004). Treatment of pulp and paper mill wastewater—a review. Science of the Total Environment, 333(1–3), 37–58.
Reap, J., Roman, F., Duncan, S., & Bras, B. (2008). A survey of unresolved problems in life cycle assessment Part 1: Goal and scope and inventory analysis. International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 13(4), 290–300.
Reich, M. C. (2005). Economic assessment of municipal waste management systems—case studies using a combination of life cycle assessment (LCA) and life cycle costing (LCC). Journal of Cleaner Production, 13(3), 253–263.
Sarkis, J. (2003). A strategic decision framework for green supply chain management. Journal of Cleaner Production, 11(4), 397–409.
Shephard, R. W. (1970). Theory of Production Functions. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Shephard, R. W., & Färe, R. (1974). The law of diminishing returns. Journal of Economics, 34(1–2), 69–90.
Shestalova, V. (2003). Sequential Malmquist indices of productivity growth: an application to OECD industrial activities. Journal of Productivity Analysis, 19(2–3), 211–226.
Stoppato, A. (2008). Life cycle assessment of photovoltaic electricity generation. Energy, 33(2), 224–232.
Sundarakani, B., de Souza, R., Goh, M., Wagner, S. M., & Manikandan, S. (2010). Modeling carbon footprints across the supply chain. International Journal of Production Economics, 128(1), 43–50.
Szabó, L., Soria, A., Forsström, J., Keränen, J. T., & Hytönen, E. (2009). A world model of the pulp and paper industry: Demand, energy consumption and emission scenarios to 2030. Environmental Science & Policy, 12(3), 257–269.
Thompson, G., Swain, J., Kay, M., & Forster, C. F. (2001). The treatment of pulp and paper mill effluent: a review. Bioresource Technology, 77(3), 275–286.
Walton, S. V., Handfield, R. B., & Melnyk, S. A. (1998). The green supply chain: Integrating suppliers into environmental management processes. Journal of Supply Chain Management, 34(2), 2–11.
Wang, X., Chan, H. K., Yee, R. W. Y., & Diaz-Rainey, I. (2012). A two-stage fuzzy-AHP model for risk assessment of implementing green initiatives in the fashion supply chain. International Journal of Production Economics, 135(2), 595–606.
Weinzettel, J., Reenaas, M., Solli, C., & Hertwich, E. G. (2009). Life cycle assessment of a floating offshore wind turbine. Renewable Energy, 34(3), 742–747.
Yung, W. K. C., Chan, H. K., Wong, D. W. C., So, J. H. T., Choi, A. C. K., & Yue, T. M. (2012). Life cycle assessment of a personal electronic product subject to the energy-using product directive. International Journal of Production Research, 50(5), 1411–1423.
Zhang, H. C., Kuo, T. C., Lu, H., & Huang, S. H. (1997). Environmentally conscious design and manufacturing: a state-of-the-art survey. Journal of Manufacturing Systems, 16(5), 352–371.
Zhang, T., & Matthews, K. (2012). Efficiency convergence properties of Indonesian banks 1992–2007. Applied Financial Economics, 22(17), 1465–1478.
Zhang, N., & Xie, H. (2015). Toward green IT: Modeling sustainable production characteristics for Chinese electronic information industry, 1980–2012. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 96, 62–70.
Zhu, Q., Sarkis, J., & Geng, Y. (2005). Green supply chain management in China: Pressures, practices and performance. International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 25(5), 449–468.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Li, Y., Chan, H.K. & Zhang, T. Environmental production and productivity growth: evidence from european paper and pulp manufacturing. Ann Oper Res (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10479-018-3126-2
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10479-018-3126-2