Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Does energy-consuming right trading have double dividend effect on firm’s economic performance and carbon emission?

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

Abstract

Whether the market-based environmental regulation policy can achieve a win–win situation of economic growth and carbon emission reduction has always been an academic controversial topic. Taking the pilot policy of energy-consuming right trading (ECRT) of China in 2016 as a quasi-natural experiment, this paper uses the difference-in-differences (DID) method to investigate the policy impact of ECRT on the economic performance and carbon emissions of firms. An economy-environment composite index has been conducted for testing double dividend effect of ECRT. The empirical results show that ECRT can improve the economic performance and reduce carbon emissions of firms significantly. The double dividend effect is more significant in high-carbon emission firms, non-state-owned firms and prior to COVID-19 pandemic. ECRT policy has Porter innovation mechanism, in which innovation input is the main contribution of economic dividend effect and green technology innovation is the main contribution of environmental dividend effect. The conclusions of this paper provide empirical evidence and policy implications for realizing the common development of economy and environment, accelerating the process of emission reduction and building a national energy trading market.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

Data availability

Data are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

Notes

  1. Thanks for Anonymous reviewer’s suggestion. The F test results of pooled regression model with fixed effect regression model, and overidentification test results of fixed effect regression model and random effect regression model are shown in Table 18. of Appendix. All results imply that fixed effect regression model is the best choice.

  2. Thanks for Anonymous reviewer’s suggestion.

References

  • Ambec S, Barla P (2002) A theoretical foundation of the Porter hypothesis. Econ Lett 75(3):355–360

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ambec S, Cohen MA, Elgie S (2020) The Porter hypothesis at 20: can environmental regulation enhance innovation and competitiveness? Rev Environ Econ Policy 7(1):2–22

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bakke TE, Mahmudi H, Fernando CS (2016) The causal effect of option pay on corporate risk management. J Financ Econ 120(3):623–643

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cai X, Lu Y, Wu M, Yu L (2016) Does environmental regulation drive away inbound foreign direct investment? Evidence from a quasi-natural experiment in China. J Dev Econ 123:73–85

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chen Z, Song P, Wang B (2021) Carbon emissions trading scheme, energy efficiency and rebound effect–Evidence from China’s provincial data. Energy Policy 157:112507

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Du G, Yu M, Sun CW, Han Z (2021) Green innovation effect of emission trading policy on pilot areas and neighboring areas: An analysis based on the spatial econometric model. Energy Policy 156:112431

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Franzò S, Frattini F, Cagno E, Trianni A (2019) A multi-stakeholder analysis of the economic efficiency of industrial energy efficiency policies: Empirical evidence from ten years of the Italian White Certificate Scheme. Appl Energy 240(15):424–435

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Friedrich L, Afshari A (2015) Framework for energy efficiency white certificates in the Emirate of Abu Dhabi. Energy Procedia 75:2589–2595

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gollop FM, Roberts MJ (1983) Environmental regulations and productivity growth: The case of fossil-fueled electric power generation. J Polit Econ 91(4):654–674

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huang JR, Shen J, Miao L, Zhang WK (2021) The effects of emission trading scheme on industrial output and air pollution emissions under city heterogeneity in China. J Clean Prod 315:128260

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Jacobson LS, LaLonde RJ, Sullivan DG (1993) Earnings losses of displaced workers. Am Econ Rev 83(4):685–709

    Google Scholar 

  • Jiang P, Van Fan Y, Klemeˇs JJ (2021) Impacts of COVID-19 on energy demand and consumption: Challenges, lessons and emerging opportunities. Appl Energy 285:116441

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Jorgenson DW, Wilcoxen PJ (1990) Environmental regulation and US economic growth. Rand J Econ 21(2):314–340

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kneller R, Manderson E (2012) Environmental regulations and innovation activity in UK manufacturing industries. Resour Energy Econ 34(2):211–235

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Li K, Lin B (2017) Economic growth model, structural transformation, and green productivity in China. Appl Energy 187:489–500

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Li C, Qi Y, Liu S, Wang X (2022) Do carbon ETS pilots improve cities’ green total factor productivity? Evidence from a quasi-natural experiment in China. Energy Econ 108:105931

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lin L, Sun W (2016) Location choice of FDI firms and environmental regulation reforms in China. J Regul Econ 50(2):207–232

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Liu H, Wang Y (2019) The economic bonus effect generated by the tradable policy mixes of energy-consuming right and CO2-emission right. China Popul Resour Environ 29(05):1–10

  • Mundaca L (2008) Markets for energy efficiency: Exploring the implications of an EU-wide ‘Tradable White Certificate’ scheme. Energy Econ 30(6):3016–3043

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Oikonomou V, Patel MK, Van der Gaast W (2009) Voluntary agreements with white certificates for energy efficiency improvement as a hybrid policy instrument. Energy Policy 37(5):1970–1982

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Oikonomou V, Di Giacomo M, Russolillo D (2012a) White certificates in the Italian energy oligopoly market. Energy Sourc, Part B: Economics, Planning, and Policy 7(1):104–111

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Oikonomou V, Flamos A, Spyridaki NA (2012b) White certificates and domestic offset schemes: possible synergies. Mitig Adapt Strat Glob Change 17(2):187–205

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pearce D (1991) The role of carbon taxes in adjusting to global warming. Econ J 101(407):938–948

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Porter M (1991) America’s green strategy. Sci Am 264(4):193–246

    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 

  • Qi J, Zhang Z (2021) Profit-driven or innovation-driven? The emission trading mechanism and Chinese enterprises’ OFDI. Ind Econ Res 111(02):15–29

    Google Scholar 

  • Qi S, Lin S, Cui J (2018) Do Environmental Rights Trading Schemes Induce Green Innovation? Evidence from Listed Firms in China. Econ Res J 53(12):129–143

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rosenow J, Skoczkowski T, Thomas S, Węglarz A (2020) Evaluating the Polish white certificate scheme. Energy Policy 144:111689

  • 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 H, Huang N, Liu L (2017) A study of the micro-effect and mechanism of the carbon emission trading scheme. J Xiamen Univ (Arts & Social Sciences) 1:13–22

  • Song H, Sun Y, Chen D (2019) Assessment for the Effect of Government Air Pollution Control Policy: Empirical Evidence from “Low-carbon City” Construction in China. Manag World 35(06):95–108+195

    Google Scholar 

  • Suerkemper F, Thomas S, Osso D, Baudry B (2012) Cost-effectiveness of energy efficiency programmes—evaluating the impacts of a regional programme in France. Energ Effi 5(1):121–135

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tanaka S (2015) Environmental regulations on air pollution in China and their impact on infant mortality. J Health Econ 42:90–103

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tian JF, Yu LG, Xue R, Zhang S, Shan YL (2022) Global low-carbon energy transition in the post-COVID-19 era. Appl Energy 307:118205

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Tone K (2001) A slacks-based measure of efficiency in data envelopment analysis. Eur J Oper Res 130(3):498–509

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Trinks A, Mulder M, Scholtens B (2020) An efficiency perspective on carbon emissions and financial performance. Ecol Econ 175:106632

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tu Z, Chen R (2015) Can the emission trading mechanism achieve the potter effect in China? Econ Res J 50(7):160–173

    Google Scholar 

  • Wang X, Zhang XB, Zhu L (2019) Imperfect market, emissions trading scheme, and technology adoption: A case study of an energy-intensive sector. Energy Econ 81:142–158

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wang J, Li J, Zhang QJ (2021a) Does carbon efficiency improve financial performance? Evidence from Chinese firms. Energy Econ 104:105658

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wang Z, Wu M, Li S, Wang C (2021b) The effect evaluation of China’s energy-consuming right trading policy: empirical analysis based on PSM-DID. Sustainability 13(21):11612

  • Wang Y, Hang Y, Wang Q (2022) Joint or separate? An economic-environmental comparison of energy-consuming and carbon emissions permits trading in China. Energy Econ 109:105949

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yan YX, Zhang XL, Zhang JH, Li K (2020) Emissions trading system (ETS) implementation and its collaborative governance effects on air pollution: The China story. Energy Policy 138:111282

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yang M, Hou Y, Fang C, Duan H (2020) Constructing energy-consuming right trading system for China’s manufacturing industry in 2025. Energy Policy 144:111602

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhang N, Zhang W (2019) Can Energy Quota Trading Achieve Win-Win Development for Economic Growth and Energy Savings in China? Econ Res J 54(01):165–181

    Google Scholar 

  • Zhou P, Ang BW, Poh KL (2006) Slacks-based efficiency measures for modeling environmental performance. Ecol Econ 60(1):111–118

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors thank the editor and the anonymous reviewers for their valuable comments which helped in improving the quality of the manuscript.

Funding

No.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. College of Finance, Tianjin University of Finance and Economics, No.25 Zhujiang Road, Hexi District, Tianjin City, 300222, People’s Republic of China

    Qingjun Zhang & Juan Wang

  2. Pearl River College, Tianjin University of Finance and Economics, Tianjin, 300222, China

    Jing Li

Authors
  1. Qingjun Zhang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Jing Li
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Juan Wang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

Qingjun Zhang: Conceptualization, Methodology, Software, Resources, Data Curation, Writing-Original draft, Writing-Review and Editing. Jing Li: Methodology, Validation, Investigation, Resources, Data curation, Writing-Review and Editing, Visualization. Juan Wang:Resources, Validation, Investigation, Writing-Review and Editing.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Qingjun Zhang.

Ethics declarations

Ethical approval

Not applicable.

Consent to participate

Not applicable.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Responsible Editor: Eyup Dogan

Publisher's note

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

Appendix

Appendix

See Figs. 3, 4, 5, and 6

Fig. 3
figure 3

Parallel trend test (CE)

Full size image
Fig. 4
figure 4

Parallel trend test (Y)

Full size image
Fig. 5
figure 5

Placebo test (CE)

Full size image
Fig. 6
figure 6

Placebo test (Y)

Full size image

See Tables 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, and 18

Table 13 Variables Definitions
Full size table
Table 14 Correlation matrix
Full size table
Table 15 Results of VIF test
Full size table
Table 16 Results of IPS unit root test
Full size table
Table 17 Results of Westerlund pandel data cointegration test
Full size table
Table 18 Results of F test and Overidentification test
Full size table

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

Zhang, Q., Li, J. & Wang, J. Does energy-consuming right trading have double dividend effect on firm’s economic performance and carbon emission?. Environ Sci Pollut Res 30, 105595–105613 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-023-29864-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-023-29864-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation