Climatic Change

, Volume 48, Issue 2–3, pp 487–514 | Cite as

Organizational Structure and the Behavior of Firms: Implications for Integrated Assessment

  • Stephen J. DeCanio
  • Catherine Dibble
  • Keyvan Amir-Atefi


Existing climate/economy models typically treatproduction through the assumptions that firms maximizeprofits and that inputs are transformed to outputsaccording to a neoclassical production function. Yetthese assumptions are at variance with some of theknown empirical features of business behavior. One ofthe most promising ways to model firms morerealistically is to include organizational networkstructure as an integral part of the representation. The firm's optimization problem then includes not onlythe choice of inputs and outputs, but the choice of anorganizational structure as well. This approach makesit possible to examine in a unified framework a numberof issues pertaining to the internal workings of thefirm: the consequences of multiple organizationalobjectives, the possible existence of productivityspillovers from one activity to another, and thealgorithmic characteristics of procedural routines. Understanding how organizational structures influenceoverall performance is an important step towardsbetter representing firms in integrated assessmentmodels. Our results show that phenomena of the typecharacterizing the `Porter hypothesis' (improvedenvironmental performance without reduction inproductivity or profitability) can appear even in verysimple models of the firm, provided the effects oforganizational structure are taken into account.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Alchian, A. A. and Woodward, S.: 1988, ‘The Firm Is Dead; Long Live the Firm: A Review of Oliver E. Williamson’s The Economic Institutions of Capitalism’, J. Econ. Lit. 26, 65–79.Google Scholar
  2. Axtell, R.: 1999, The Emergence of Firms in a Population of Agents, Santa Fe Institute Working Paper 99-03-019, Santa Fe, NM, and Center on Social and Economic Dynamics, Brookings Institution, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
  3. Bernow, S., Duckworth, M., and DeCicco, J.: 1998, ‘Climate Strategy for the United States: “Bottom-Up” Analyses of CO2 Reductions, Costs and Benefits’, Energy Pol. 26, special issue.Google Scholar
  4. Bohi, D. and Burtraw, D.: 1997, ‘SO2 Allowance Trading: How Do Expectations and Experience Measure Up?’ Electricity J. (August/September), 67–75.Google Scholar
  5. Bruce, J. P., Lee, H., and Haites, E. F. (eds.) [IPCC]: 1996, Climate Change: Economic and Social Dimensions of Climate Change, Contribution of Working Group III to the Second Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, U.K.Google Scholar
  6. Carley, K. M.: 1999, ‘Opening Up the Black Box: Organizational Design as Dynamic Networks’, Paper presented at the Pew Center on Global Climate Change 1999 Workshop on the Economics and Integrated Assessment of Climate Change, 21–22 July, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
  7. Carley, K. M. and Prietula, M. J. (eds.): 1994, Computational Organization Theory, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers, Hillsdale, NJ.Google Scholar
  8. Cook, E. (ed.): 1996, Ozone Protection in the United States: Elements of Success, World Resources Institute, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
  9. DeCanio, S. J.: 1993, ‘Barriers within Firms to Energy-Efficient Investments’, Energy Pol. 21, 906–914.Google Scholar
  10. DeCanio, S. J.: 1994, ‘Agency and Control Problems in U.S. Corporations: The Case of Energy-Efficient Investment Projects’, J. Econ. Busin. 1, 105–123.Google Scholar
  11. DeCanio, S. J.: 1997, ‘Economic Modeling and the False Tradeoff between Environmental Protection and Economic Growth’, Contemp. Econ. Pol. 15, 10–27.Google Scholar
  12. DeCanio, S. J. and Watkins, W. E.: 1998, ‘Information Processing and Organizational Structure’, J. Econ. Behavior Organ. 36, 275–294.Google Scholar
  13. DeCanio, S. J., Watkins, W. E., Mitchell, G., Amir-Atefi, K., and Dibble, C.: 2000a, ‘Complexity in Organizations: Consequences for Climate Policy Analysis’, in Hall, D. C. and Howarth, R. B. (eds.), The Long-Term Economics of Climate Change: Beyond a Doubling of Greenhouse Gas Concentrations, Vol. 3 of Advances in the Economics of Environmental Resources, Elsevier Science, Amsterdam and New York.Google Scholar
  14. DeCanio, S. J., Dibble, C., and Amir-Atefi, K.: 2000b, ‘The Importance of Organizational Structure for the Adoption of Innovations’, Manage. Sci. 46, 1285–1299.Google Scholar
  15. Edmonds, J. A., Pitcher, H. M., Barns, D., Baron, R., and Wise, M. A.: 1992, Modeling Future Greenhouse Gas Emissions: The Second Generation Model Description, Draft Report, presented to the United Nations University Conference on Global Change and Modeling, Tokyo (October 1991).Google Scholar
  16. Foulds, L. R.: 1992, Graph Theory Applications, Springer-Verlag, New York.Google Scholar
  17. Goldberg, D. E.: 1989, Genetic Algorithms in Search, Optimization, and Machine Learning, Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA.Google Scholar
  18. Goulder, L. H. and Schneider, S. H.: 1999, ‘Induced Technological Change and the Attractiveness of CO2 Abatement Policies’, Resour. Energy Econ. 21, 211–253.Google Scholar
  19. Hammitt, J. K.: 1997, Are the Costs of Proposed Environmental Regulations Overestimated? Evidence from the CFC Phaseout, Center for Risk Analysis and Department of Health Policy and Management, Harvard School of Public Health, Cambridge, MA (May).Google Scholar
  20. Hawken, P., Lovins, A., and Lovins, L. H.: 1999, Natural Capitalism, Little, Brown and Co., Boston.Google Scholar
  21. Holland, J. H.: 1992, Adaptation in Natural and Artificial Systems, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
  22. Howarth, R. B.: 1997, ‘Energy Efficiency and Economic Growth’, Contemp. Econ. Pol. 15, 1–9.Google Scholar
  23. Interlaboratory Working Group: 1997, Scenarios of U.S. Carbon Reductions: Potential Impacts of Energy Technologies by 2010 and Beyond, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Berkeley CA, and Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge. TN, LBNL-40533 and ORNL-444, September, Scholar
  24. Jaffe, A. B., Peterson, S. R., Portney, P. R., and Stavins, R. N.: 1995, ‘Environmental Regulation and the Competitiveness of U.S. Manufacturing: What Does the Evidence Tell Us?’ J. Econ. Lit. 33, 132–163.Google Scholar
  25. Jorgenson, D. W. and Wilcoxen, P. J.: 1993, ‘Reducing U.S. Carbon Emissions: An Econometric General Equilibrium Assessment’, Resour. Energy Econ. 15, 7–25.Google Scholar
  26. Krugman, P.: 1996, ‘What Economists Can Learn from Evolutionary Theorists’, Paper given to the European Association for Evolutionary Political Economy. Scholar
  27. Levine, D.: 1996, Users Guide to the PGAPack Parallel Genetic Algorithm Library, Argonne National Laboratory publication ANL-95/18.Google Scholar
  28. Lin, Z. and Carley, K.: 1994, ‘Organizational Response: Trade-Offs among Opportunities for Review, Cost, and Performance’, in Computational Organization Design, Papers from the 1994 AAAI Spring Symposium, Hulthage, I., Chair, AAAI Press, Technical Report SS-94-07, Menlo Park, CA.Google Scholar
  29. Lovins, A. and Lovins, L. H.: 1997, Climate: Making Sense and Making Money, Rocky Mountain Institute, Snowmass, CO, Scholar
  30. Manne, A. S. and Richels, R. G.: 1992, Buying Greenhouse Insurance: The Economic Costs of Carbon Dioxide Emission Limits, The M.I.T. Press, Cambridge MA.Google Scholar
  31. Moore, C. and Miller, A.: 1994, Green Gold: Japan, Germany, the United States, and the Race for Environmental Technology, Beacon Press, Boston.Google Scholar
  32. Nelson, R. R.: 1995, ‘Recent Evolutionary Theorizing about Economic Change’, J. Econ. Lit. 33, 48–90.Google Scholar
  33. Nelson, R. R. and Winter, S. G.: 1982, An Evolutionary Theory of Economic Change, The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
  34. Nordhaus, W. D.: 1994, Managing the Global Commons: The Economics of Climate Change, The M.I.T. Press, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
  35. Palmer, K., Oates, W. E., and Portney, P.: 1995, ‘Tightening Environmental Standards: The Benefit-Cost or the No-Cost Paradigm?’ J. Econ. Perspect. 9, 119–132.Google Scholar
  36. Porter, M. E.: 1991, ‘America's Green Strategy: Environmental Standards and Competitiveness’, Scient. Amer. 264, 168.Google Scholar
  37. Porter, M. E. and van der Linde, C.: 1995a, ‘Toward a New Conception of the Environment-Competitiveness Relationship’, J. Econ. Perspect. 9, 97–118.Google Scholar
  38. Porter, M. E. and van der Linde, C.: 1995b, ‘Green and Competitive: Breaking the Stalemate’, Harvard Busin. Rev. 73, 120–134.Google Scholar
  39. Radner, R.: 1992, ‘Hierarchy: The Economics of Managing’, J. Econ. Lit. 30, 1382–1415.Google Scholar
  40. Radner, R.: 1993, ‘The Organization of Decentralized Information Processing’, Econometrica 61, 1109–1146.Google Scholar
  41. Radner, R.: 1996, ‘Bounded Rationality, Indeterminacy, and the Theory of the Firm’, Econ. J. 106, 1360–1373.Google Scholar
  42. Raff, D. M. G. and Temin, P.: 1991, ‘Business History and Recent Economic Theory: Imperfect Information, Incentives, and the Internal Organization of Firms’, in Temin, P. (ed.), Inside the Business Enterprise: Historical Perspectives on the Use of Information, The University of Chicago Press, Chicago.Google Scholar
  43. Romm, J. J.: 1994, Lean and Clean Management: How to Boost Profits and Productivity by Reducing Pollution, Kodansha America, Inc., New York.Google Scholar
  44. Romm, J. J.: 1999, Cool Companies: How the Best Businesses Boost Profits and Productivity by Cutting Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Island Press, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
  45. Silberberg, E.: 1990, The Structure of Economics: A Mathematical Analysis, second edition, McGraw-Hill, Inc., New York.Google Scholar
  46. Tom Sawyer Software: 1999, Graph Layout Toolkit, Berkeley, CA, Scholar
  47. Union of Concerned Scientists and Tellus Institute: 1998, A Small Price to Pay: U.S. Action to Curb Global Warming Is Feasible and Affordable, UCS Publications, Cambridge MA.Google Scholar
  48. Van Zandt, T.: 1997, ‘The Scheduling and Organization of Periodic Associative Computation: Essential Networks’, Rev. Econ. Design 3, 15–27.Google Scholar
  49. Van Zandt, T.: 1998a, ‘Organizations with an Endogenous Number of Information Processing Agents’, in Majumdar, M. (ed.), Organizations with Incomplete Information, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  50. Van Zandt, T.: 1998b, ‘The Scheduling and Organization of Periodic Associative Computation: Efficient Networks’, Rev. Econ. Design 3, 93–127.Google Scholar
  51. von Weizsäcker, E., Lovins, A. B., and Lovins, L. H.: 1997, Factor Four: Doubling Wealth, Halving Resource Use, Earthscan Publications Limited, London.Google Scholar
  52. Weyant, J. P. and Hill, J. N.: 1999, ‘Introduction and Overview’, in Weyant, J. P., Jacoby, H., Edmonds, J., and Richels, R. (eds.), The Costs of the Kyoto Protocol: A Multi-Model Evaluation, Energy J., special issue.Google Scholar
  53. Williamson, O. E.: 1985, The Economic Institutions of Capitalism: Firms, Markets, Relational Contracting, The Free Press, New York.Google Scholar
  54. Wilson, R. J.: 1985, Introduction to Graph Theory, Longman Group Limited, Harlow, U.K.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2001

Authors and Affiliations

  • Stephen J. DeCanio
    • 1
  • Catherine Dibble
    • 2
  • Keyvan Amir-Atefi
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of EconomicsUniversity of CaliforniaSanta BarbaraUSA
  2. 2.Department of GeographyUniversity of CaliforniaSanta BarbaraUSA

Personalised recommendations