Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

The Net Zero Challenge for Firms’ Competitiveness

  • Published:
Environmental and Resource Economics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The European Union (EU) is planning to become carbon neutral by mid-century. This bold objective might have far-reaching consequences for the region capacity to remain cost-competitive, at least in the short term. Until now the decarbonization policies (e.g. ETS and renewable support) meant higher energy prices paid by households and firms: boldest targets will probably, at least in the short and medium-term, further out pressure on energy prices. To explore the impact of climate policies on European firms’competitiveness, we extend the standard analysis that links input costs and competitiveness including a Unit Energy Cost (UEC) measure. We study the UEC dynamics in different countries and industries, assessing its main drivers (prices, energy intensity, sector composition). Modelling the relationship between firms’ foreign sales and the UEC in a gravity model setup, we find that an increase in UECs reduces bilateral exports; euro-area countries show the largest negative effects. Our results strengthen the case for pursuing a stronger integration of European energy markets in order to avoid that the ambitious long-term European decarbonization targets penalize the European manufacturers. It is also important to establish a global “carbon”level playing field such as a EU-level carbon border adjustment, or other form of EU low-carbon exports support. We finally suggest to use some energy cost indicator in monitoring country competitiveness, as it happens for ULC, for example adding UEC to the Countries’ MIP prepared by the European Commission.

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

Access this article

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. According to the 2017 World Energy Outlook, the European Union and Japan are the two regions with the highest electricity prices. Over time, EU electricity prices are predicted to become the highest in the world (see fig 6.26 of IEA, 2017).

  2. The indicators used in the MIP scoreboard to measure price and cost competitiveness are the Real Effective Exchange Rate and the nominal Unit Labour Cost with the addition of the Export Market Share.

  3. These sub-industries are Iron and Steel/Non-Ferrous Metals, Chemical and Petrochemical, Non-Metallic Minerals, Mining and Quarrying, Food and Tobacco, Textile and Leather, Paper Pulp and Print,Transport Equipment, Machinery, Wood and Wood Products, Construction, Non-specified (Industry).

  4. The Combined Nomenclature (CN) is a tool for classifying goods, set up to meet the requirements both of the Common Customs Tariff and of the EU’s external trade statistics. The CN is also used in intra-EU trade statistics.

  5. Prodcom codes are composed by 8 digits where the first 4 are related to the corresponding Nace rev. 2 classification. Using this code we are able to aggregate data at industry level. For more details see http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/prodcom.

  6. In the paper we follow the suggestions of the European Commission of using a real unit energy costs indicator, defined as energy costs as a fraction of a measure of production (European Commission 2014b). Since energy is considered an intermediate input we express energy costs as a share of the value of production instead of using the value added.

  7. We define Energy Intensive sectors as those with a UEC greater than the 75th percentile of the country distribution during the whole sample period. Without granular information on prices at the industry level this classification might be biased because we are not considering partial or total tax exemptions and other form of price subsidies.

  8. From 2004 EU includes Cyprus, Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Poland, Slovakia and Slovenia; from 2007 it also includes Bulgaria and Romania.

  9. For an evaluation of RES deployment in Italy see Faiella et al. (2016).

  10. Uni-directional bilateral flows represent the country export: the previous literature used an average between import and export but this might lead to biased estimators.

  11. There is an intense debate regarding the inclusion of fixed effects in panel data analyses: according to Egger and Pfaffermayr (2003), models including bilateral effects dominate those with main effects and a selection of observable time-invariant variables; however, the inclusion of fixed bilateral effects makes it impossible to directly estimate the coefficients of time-invariant observables (like distance).

  12. For the sake of full comparability with UECs we express labor costs as a share of the value of production.

  13. The coefficients reported in Tables are estimated with a PQML and as such they can be interpreted as elasticities. See Gourieroux (2000).

  14. Considering the bilateral exchange rate among the covariates does not impact significantly our results. These set of estimates are available upon request.

  15. The contribution of the counterpart Chinese import with respect to the total import at the industry level is included as a regressor.

  16. We use the share of value added of Agriculture, forestry and fishing; Arts, entertainment and recreation, other service activities, activities of household and extra-territorial organizations and bodies; Construction; Industry (except construction); Information and communication; Professional, scientific and technical activities; administrative and support service activities, Public administration, defense, education, human health and social work activities; Real estate activities; Wholesale and retail trade, transport, accommodation and food service activities.

  17. There are several papers that review this literature like Rose and Stanley (2005) and Havranek (2010).

  18. Between 1999 and 2015, EA export in nominal terms grew of about 140%; excluding Germany, EA export would have increased by about 100% while in the same period German export grew of about 250%.

  19. Shengwu et al. (2017), following Puhani (2012), argue that in case of non-linear models (in particular with a Poisson link function), the interaction parameters cannot be considered as the difference in semi-elasticity and propose a solution to fix this issue; in the bottom of Table 9 we show some estimates of the interactions that uses the same kind of adjustment.

  20. The central line is based on the mean of the replications while the upper and lower bound are computed taking upper and lower 2.5 percent of the empirical distribution.

  21. The practical setup of a carbon border adjustment, that does not violate the WTO legal framework, must overcome significant challenges: technical feasibility, data availability, the risk of retaliation (Rocchi et al. 2018).

References

  • Abeberese A (2017) Electricity cost and firm performance: evidence from India. Rev Econom Stat 99(5):839–852

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Amici M, Bobbio E, Torrini R (2017) Patterns of convergence (divergence) in the euro area: profitability versus cost and price indicators. Bank of Italy Occasional Papers (415)

  • Andersen M, Ekins P (2009) Carbon-energy taxation: lessons from Europe. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Angelini E, Dieppe A, Pierluigi B (2015) Modelling internal devaluation experiences in Europe: rational or learning agents? J Macroecon 43:81–92

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arlinghaus J (2015) Impacts of carbon prices on indicators of competitiveness: a review of empirical finding. OECD Environment Working Papers (87)

  • Baldwin R, Taglioni D (2006) Gravity for Dummies and Dummies for Gravity Equations. (12516)

  • Bayoumi T, Harmsen R, Turunen J (2011) Euro area export performance and competitiveness. IMF Working Paper (11)

  • Böckers V, Haucap J, Heimeshoff U (2013) Benefits of an integrated European electricity market. DICE Discussion Papers 109, Heinrich Heine University Düsseldorf, Düsseldorf Institute for Competition Economics (DICE)

  • Caliendo L, Dvorkin M, Parro F (2015) Trade and Labor Market Dynamics: General Equilibrium Analysis of the China Trade Shock. Working Papers 2015-9, Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

  • Camarero M, Gómez-Herrera E, Tamarit C (2018) New evidence on trade and FDI: how large is the euro effect? Open Econ Rev 29(2):451–467

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Costantini C, Mazzanti V (2012) On the green and innovative side of trade competitiveness. The impact of environmental policies and innovation on EU exports. Res Policy 41:132–153

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Egger P, Pfaffermayr M (2003) The proper panel econometric specification of the gravity equation: a three-way model with bilateral interaction effects. Empir Econ 28(3):571–580

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • European Commission (2014a). Energy Costs and EU Industrial Competitiveness, Chapter 6, pp. 185–212. SWD (2014)277

  • European Commission (2014b). Energy prices and costs report. Technical report

  • European Commission (2016). Eu reference scenario 2016. Energy, transport and GHG emissions trends to 2050. Technical report

  • European Commission (2019a). Evaluation of the council directive 2003/96/EC of 27 October 2003 restructuring the community framework for the taxation of energy products and electricity, commission staff working document. Technical report

  • European Commission (2019b) “the European green deal,” communication from the commission to the European parliament, the european council, the council, the European economic and social committee and the committee of the regions. Technical report

  • European Commission (2020a) European climate law-achieving climate neutrality by 2050, document in consultation. Technical report

  • European Commission (2020b) Revision of directive 2003/96/ec restructuring the community framework for the taxation of energy products and electricity (energy taxation directive or ‘etd’ or ‘directive’), inception impact assessment. Technical report

  • European Commission (2021) “fit for 55: delivering the eu’s 2030 climate target on the way to climate neutrality”. Technical report

  • Faiella I, Bartocci A, Brodi E, Felettigh A, Mistretta A, Natoli F, Painelli L (2016) La rivoluzione silenziosa delle energie rinnovabili. Mimeograph

  • Faiella I, Mistretta A (2015) Spesa energetica e competitività delle imprese italiane. Economia Pubblica 42(3)

  • Flues F, Lutz B (2015)Competitiveness impacts of the german electricity tax. OECD Environment Working Papers (88)

  • Gerster A (2017) Do electricity prices matter? Plant-level evidence from German manufacturing. Ruhr Economic Papers 672, RWI - Leibniz-Institut für Wirtschaftsforschung, Ruhr-University Bochum, TU Dortmund University, University of Duisburg-Essen

  • Giordano C, Zollino F (2015) Exploring price and non-price determinants of trade flows in the largest euro-area countries. ECB Working Paper (1789)

  • Glick R, Rose AK (2002) Does a currency union affect trade? The time-series evidence. Eur Econ Rev 46(6):1125–1151

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Glick R, Rose AK (2016) Currency unions and trade: a post-EMU reassessment. Eur Econ Rev 87(C):78–91

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gourieroux C (2000) Econometrics of qualitative dependent variables. Themes in modern econometrics. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Havranek T (2010) Rose effect and the euro: is the magic gone? Rev World Econ 146(2):241–261

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Head K, Mayer T (2014) Chapter 3 - gravity equations: Workhorse, toolkit, and cookbook. In: Gopinath G, Helpman E, Rogoff K (eds) Handbook of International Economics, Volume 4 of Handbook of International Economics. Elsevier, pp 131–195

  • Jaffe AB, Palmer K (1997) Environmental regulation and innovation: a panel data study. Rev Econ Stat 79(4):610–619

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kaltenegger O, Loschel A, Baikowski M, Lingens J (2017) Energy costs in Germany and Europe: an assessment based on a (total real unit) energy cost accounting framework. Energy Policy 104:419–430

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kepaptsoglou K, Karlaftis M, Tsamboulas D (2010) The gravity model specification for modeling international trade flows and free trade agreement effects: a 10-year review of empirical studies. Open Econ J 3:1–13

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marin G, Vona F (2021) The impact of energy prices on socioeconomic and environmental performance: Evidence from French manufacturing establishments, 1997–2015. Eur Econ Rev 135:103739

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Martin R, de Preux LB, Wagner UJ (2014) The impact of a carbon tax on manufacturing: evidence from microdata. J Public Econ 117:1–14

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mika A, Zymek R (2017) Friends Without Benefits? New EMU Members and the “Euro Effect” on Trade. CESifo Working Paper Series 6308, CESifo Group Munich

  • Myant M, Theodoropoulou S, Piasna A (2016) Unemployment, internal devaluation and labour market deregulation in Europe. European Trade Union Institute

  • Newbery D, Strbac G, Viehoff I (2016) The benefits of integrating European electricity markets. Energy Policy 94:253–263

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Porter ME, van der Linde C (1995) Toward a new conception of the environment-competitiveness relationship. J Econ Perspect 9(4):97–118

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Puhani P (2012) The treatment effect, the cross difference, and the interaction term in nonlinear difference-in-differences models. Econ Lett 115(1):85–87

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rammer C, Gottschalk S, Peneder M, Wörter M, Stucki T, Arvanitis S (2017) Does energy policy hurt international competitiveness of firms? A comparative study for Germany, Switzerland and Austria. Energy Policy 109:154–180

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ramsey J (1969) Test for specification errors in classical linear least squares regression analysis. J R Stat Soc Ser B 31:350–371

    Google Scholar 

  • Ratti RA, Seol Y, Yoon K (2011) Relative energy price and investment by European firms. Energy Econ 33(5):721–731

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rentschler J, Kornejew M (2017) Energy price variation and competitiveness: firm level evidence from Indonesia. Energy Econ 67:242–254

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rocchi P, Serrano M, Roca J, Arto I (2018) Border carbon adjustments based on avoided emissions: addressing the challenge of its design. Ecol Econ 145:126–136

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rose AK (2017) Why do estimates of the emu effect on trade vary so much? Open Econ Rev 28(1):1–18

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rose AK, Stanley TD (2005) A meta-analysis of the effect of common currencies on international trade. J Economic Surv 19(3):347–365

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Santos Silva J, Tenreyro S (2006) The log of gravity. Rev Econ Stat 88(4):641–658

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Santos Silva J, Tenreyro S (2010) Currency unions in prospect and retrospect. Ann Rev Econ 2(1):51–74

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sato M, Dechezlepretre A (2015) Asymmetric industrial energy prices and international trade. Energy Econ 52:S130–S141. Frontiers in the Economics of Energy Efficiency

  • Shengwu S, Erik N, Maoyong F (2017) Interaction terms in Poisson and log linear regression models. Bull Econ Res 70(1):E89–E96

    Google Scholar 

  • Speck S, Salmons R, Andersen M, Barker T, Christie E, Ekins P, Gerald J Fitz, Jilkova J, Junankar J, Landesmann M, Pollitt H, Salmons R, Scott S, Speck S (2007) Leakage analysis within a decoupling framework, pp 420–468. Denmark: Danmarks Miljøundersøgelser, Aarhus Universitet

  • Stockhammer E, Sotiropoulos DP (2014) Rebalancing the euro area: the costs of internal devaluation. Rev Polit Econ 26(2):210–233

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Alessandro Mistretta.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

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

We would like to thank the participants to the 6th Italian Association of Environmental and Resource Economists (IAERE), to the World Congress of Environmental and Resource Economists (WCERE) conferences, to the eighth edition of the Italian Congress of Econometrics and Empirical Economics (ICEEE) and to the 38th edition of the International Energy Workshop (IEW). We are also indebted to Matteo Bugamelli, Federico Cingano, Paolo Sestito, Stefano Siviero, Roberto Torrini, Roberta Zizza, Francesco Zollino and three anonymous referee for their valuable comments. This paper was previously circulated under the title Energy costs and competitiveness in Europe. The views expressed do not necessarily reflect those of the Bank of Italy.

Appendices

Figures

See Fig. 11.

Fig. 11
figure 11

UEC cumulative contributions. Germany, France, Italy and Spain

UEC decomposition

$$\begin{aligned}&\bigtriangleup _{t}UEC_{si}=UEC_{sit}-UEC_{sit-1}=\\&\quad =\frac{\sum \limits _{e}E_{siet}(p_{set}+\tau _{set})}{PROD_{tis}}-\frac{\sum \limits _{e}E_{siet-1}(p_{set-1}+\tau _{set-1})}{PROD_{sit-1}}\\&\quad =\frac{\frac{\sum \limits _{e}E_{siet}(p_{set}+\tau _{set})}{defl_{sit}}}{\frac{PROD_{sit}}{defl_{sit}}}-\frac{\frac{\sum \limits _{e}E_{siet-1}(p_{set-1}+\tau _{set-1})}{defl_{sit-1}}}{\frac{PROD_{sit-1}}{defl_{sit-1}}}=\\&\quad = \frac{\sum \limits _{e}E_{siet}({\widehat{p}}_{siet}+{\widehat{\tau }}_{siet})}{{\widehat{PROD}}_{tis}}-\frac{\sum \limits _{e}E_{siet-1}({\widehat{p}}_{siet-1}+{\widehat{\tau }}_{siet-1})}{{\widehat{PROD}}_{sit-1}} \end{aligned}$$

where

$$\begin{aligned} {\widehat{p}}_{siet}= & {} \frac{p_{set}}{defl_{sit}};{\widehat{p}}_{siet}={\widehat{p}}_{siet-1}+\bigtriangleup _{t}{\widehat{p}}_{sie};\\ {\widehat{\tau }}_{siet}= & {} {\widehat{\tau }}_{siet-1}+\bigtriangleup _{t}{\widehat{\tau }}_{sie} \,\mathrm{and}\, {\widehat{PROD}}_{sit}=\frac{PROD_{sit}}{defl_{sit}} \end{aligned}$$

we define energy intensity as

$$\begin{aligned} I_{sit}= & {} \frac{\sum \limits _{e}E_{siet}}{{\widehat{PROD}}_{tis}}\\= & {} \sum \limits _{e}I_{siet}({\widehat{p}}_{siet-1}+\bigtriangleup _{t} {\widehat{p}}_{sie}+{\widehat{\tau }}_{siet-1}+\bigtriangleup _{t}{\widehat{\tau }}_{sie}) -\sum \limits _{e}I_{siet-1}({\widehat{p}}_{siet-1}+{\widehat{\tau }}_{siet-1})\\= & {} \sum \limits _{e}({\widehat{p}}_{siet-1}+{\widehat{\tau }}_{siet-1})(I_{siet}-I_{siet-1})+\sum \limits _{e}I_{siet}(\bigtriangleup _{t}{\widehat{p}}_{sie}+\bigtriangleup _{t} {\widehat{\tau }}_{siet})\\= & {} \underbrace{\sum \limits _{e}({\widehat{p}}_{siet-1}+{\widehat{\tau }}_{siet-1})\bigtriangleup _{t}I_{ies}}_{Energy~intensity~effect}\\&+\underbrace{\sum \limits _{e}I_{siet}\bigtriangleup _{t}{\widehat{p}}_{sie}}_{price~effect}+\underbrace{\sum \limits _{e}I_{siet}\bigtriangleup _{t} {\widehat{\tau }}_{sie}}_{tax~effect}=\bigtriangleup _{t}UEC_{si}\\ \bigtriangleup _{t}{UEC_{s}}= & {} \sum \limits _{i}q_{sit}UEC_{sit}-\sum \limits _{i}q_{si t-1}UEC_{sit-1}=\\= & {} \sum \limits _{i}q_{sit}UEC_{sit}+\sum \limits _{i}q_{sit-1}UEC_{sit}-\sum \limits _{i}q_{sit-1}UEC_{sit}-\sum \limits _{i}q_{si t-1}UEC_{sit-1}=\\= & {} \sum \limits _{i}q_{sit-1}(UEC_{sit}-UEC_{sit-1})+\sum \limits _{i}UEC_{sit}(q_{sit}-q_{sit-1})=\\= & {} \sum \limits _{i}q_{sit-1}\bigtriangleup _{t}UEC_{si}+\sum \limits _{i}UEC_{sit}\bigtriangleup _{t}q_{si}=\bigtriangleup _{t}{UEC_{s}}\\ \bigtriangleup _{t}{UEC_{EUt}}= & {} \sum \limits _{s}z_{st}UEC_{st}-\sum \limits _{s}z_{st-1}UEC_{st-1}=\\= & {} \sum \limits _{s}z_{st}UEC_{st}+\sum \limits _{s}z_{st-1}UEC_{st}-\sum \limits _{s}z_{st-1}UEC_{st}-\sum \limits _{s}z_{s t-1}UEC_{st-1}=\\= & {} \sum \limits _{s}z_{st-1}(UEC_{st}-UEC_{st-1})+\sum \limits _{s}UEC_{st}(z_{st}-z_{st-1})=\\= & {} \sum \limits _{s}z_{st-1}\bigtriangleup _{t}UEC_{s}+\sum \limits _{s}UEC_{st}\bigtriangleup _{t}z_{s}=\bigtriangleup _{t}{UEC_{EU}} \end{aligned}$$

plugging in the previous results, we obtain

$$\begin{aligned}&==\underbrace{\sum \limits _{s}z_{st-1}\sum \limits _{i}q_{sit-1}\sum \limits _{e}({\widehat{p}}_{siet-1}+{\widehat{\tau }}_{set-1})\bigtriangleup _{t}I_{ies}}_{Energy~intenity~effect}+\\&\quad +\underbrace{\sum \limits _{s}z_{st-1}\sum \limits _{i}q_{sit-1}\sum \limits _{e}I_{siet}\bigtriangleup _{t} {\widehat{p}}_{sie}}_{Pric~ effect}+\underbrace{\sum \limits _{s}z_{st-1}\sum \limits _{i}q_{sit-1}\sum \limits _{e}I_{siet}\bigtriangleup _{t} {\widehat{\tau }}_{se}}_{tax~effect}+\\&\quad +\underbrace{\sum \limits _{s}z_{st-1}\sum \limits _{i}UEC_{sit}\bigtriangleup _{t}q_{si}}_{Sectoral~composition~effect}+\underbrace{\sum \limits _{s}UEC_{st}\bigtriangleup _{t}z_{s}}_{Country~composition~effect}=\bigtriangleup _{t}{UEC_{EU}} \end{aligned}$$

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Faiella, I., Mistretta, A. The Net Zero Challenge for Firms’ Competitiveness. Environ Resource Econ 83, 85–113 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10640-022-00652-7

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10640-022-00652-7

Keywords

JEL Classification

Navigation