Is Porter Hypothesis True or FalseA Perspective Based on Environmental Strategic Orientation

  • Liming Zhang
  • Li Yang
  • Fei Ye
  • Guichuan ZhouEmail author
Conference paper
Part of the Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing book series (AISC, volume 1001)


With increasingly  severe environmental regulations(ER), the need to develop efficient strategies towards environmental protection and high performance is a pressing issue for enterprises. However, extant literature on the subject rarely discusses how different environmental strategy orientations mediate the relationships involved in the Porter Hypothesis(PH). Therefore, this study focuses on an environmental strategy response to ER, and sustained high performance, by incorporating the idea of technology innovation(TI). We first divide environmental strategy into two modes: proactive environmental strategy(PES) and reactive environmental strategy(RES). We then contextualize two models to analyze the ER and enterprise performance(EP) correlation; and test the mediating effect of TI on this relationship, adhering to PES. The empirical data on 760 Chinese A-share listed enterprises in 2017 indicates that there is no generality in PH. An enterprises environmental strategic orientation may cause PH and traditional hypothesis disparity. ER is positively correlated with EP, with TI playing an intermediary role, in the PES mode; but in the RES approach, ER and EP exhibit a negative connect. This study holds great significance for enterprises aspiring to reinforce environmental protection, and promote strategic transformation.


Porter hypothesis Environmental regulation Technology innovation Enterprise performance 


Author Contributions

The authors contributed equally to this work. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.


This research was funded by the National Natural Science Foundation of China, grant number 71702118; and the Chengdu Social Science Planning Project, grant number 2018R13.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.


  1. 1.
    Andr, F.J.: Strategic effects and the porter hypothesis. MPRA Paper (2015)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Aragón-Correa, J.A., Hurtado-Torres, N., et al.: Environmental strategy and performance in small firms: a resource-based perspective. J. Environ. Manag. 86(1), 88–103 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Banerjee, S.B.: Corporate environmentalism: the construct and its measurement. J. Bus. Res. 55(3), 177–191 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Darnall, N., Jolley, G.J., Ytterhus, B.: Understanding the relationship between a facility’s environmental and financial performance. Environmental Policy and Corporate Behaviour, pp. 213–259 (2007)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    De Marchi, V.: Environmental innovation and R&D cooperation: empirical evidence from Spanish manufacturing firms. Res. Policy 41(3), 614–623 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Eiadat, Y., Kelly, A., et al.: Green and competitive? An empirical test of the mediating role of environmental innovation strategy. J. World Bus. 43(2), 131–145 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Gagliardi, L., Marin, G., Miriello, C.: The greener the better? Job creation effects of environmentally-friendly technological change. Ind. Corp. Chang. 25(5), 779–807 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Heyes, A., Kapur, S.: Regulatory attitudes and environmental innovation in a model combining internal and external R&D. J. Environ. Econ. Manag. 61(3), 327–340 (2011)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Jorgenson, D.W., Wilcoxen, P.J.: Environmental regulation and US economic growth. Rand J. Econ. 314–340 (1990)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Karassin, O., Bar-Haim, A.: Multilevel corporate environmental responsibility. J. Environ. Manag. 183, 110–120 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kneller, R., Manderson, E.: Environmental regulations and innovation activity in UK manufacturing industries. Resour. Energy Econ. 34(2), 211–235 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Latan, H., Jabbour, C.J.C., et al.: Effects of environmental strategy, environmental uncertainty and top management’s commitment on corporate environmental performance: The role of environmental management accounting. J. Clean. Prod. 180, 297–306 (2018)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Maçaneiro, M.B., da Cunha, S.K., et al.: A regulamentação ambiental conduzindo estratégias ecoinovativas na indústria de papel e celulose. Revista de Administração Contemporânea 19(1), 65–83 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Manello, A.: Productivity growth, environmental regulation and win-win opportunities: the case of chemical industry in Italy and Germany. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 262(2), 733–743 (2017)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Palmer, K., Oates, W.E., Portney, P.R.: Tightening environmental standards: the benefit-cost or the no-cost paradigm? J. Econ. Perspect. 9(4), 119–132 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Papagiannakis, G., Voudouris, I., Lioukas, S.: The road to sustainability: exploring the process of corporate environmental strategy over time. Bus. Strat. Environ. 23(4), 254–271 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Porter, M.: Americas green strategy. Business and the environment: a reader 33 (1996)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Porter, M.E., Van der Linde, C.: Toward a new conception of the environment-competitiveness relationship. J. Econ. Perspect. 9(4), 97–118 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Pulkka, L., Junnila, S.: Gravitational slingshot analogy of discontinuous sustainability innovation in the construction industry. Constr. Innov. 15(4), 409–427 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Ramanathan, R., Poomkaew, B., Nath, P.: The impact of organizational pressures on environmental performance of firms. Bus. Ethics Eur. Rev. 23(2), 169–182 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Rubashkina, Y., Galeotti, M., Verdolini, E.: Environmental regulation and competitiveness: empirical evidence on the porter hypothesis from European manufacturing sectors. Energy Policy 83, 288–300 (2015)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Ryszko, A.: Proactive environmental strategy, technological Eco-innovation and firm performancełcase of Poland. Sustainability 8(2), 156 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Sarker, T.K.: Voluntary codes of conduct and their implementation in the Australian mining and petroleum industries: is there a business case for CSR? Asian J. Bus. Ethics 2(2), 205–224 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Sharma, S., Pablo, A.L., Vredenburg, H.: Corporate environmental responsiveness strategies: the importance of issue interpretation and organizational context. J. Appl. Behav. Sci. 35(1), 87–108 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Taygashinova, K., Akhmetova, A.: Accounting for environmental costs as an instrument of environmental controlling in the company. Manag. Environ. Qual. Int. J. 30(1), 87–97 (2019)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Wagner, M., Schaltegger, S.: The effect of corporate environmental strategy choice and environmental performance on competitiveness and economic performance: an empirical study of EU manufacturing. Eur. Manag. J. 22(5), 557–572 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Yu, W., Ramanathan, R., Nath, P.: Environmental pressures and performance: an analysis of the roles of environmental innovation strategy and marketing capability. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 117, 160–169 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Bl, Yuan, Sg, Ren, et al.: The difference effect of environmental regulation on two stages of technology innovation in China’s manufacturing industry. Front. Eng. Manag. 3, 24–29 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Zrelli, H., Belloumi, M.: Environmental stakeholders, environmental strategies, and productivity of Tunisian manufacturing industries. Middle East Dev. J. 7(1), 108–126 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Business SchoolSichuan UniversityChengduPeople’s Republic of China

Personalised recommendations