Do Corporate Global Environmental Standards Create or Destroy Market Value
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors find that firms adopting a single stringent global environmental standard have much higher market values, as measured by Tobin'sq, than firms defaulting to less stringent, or poorly enforced host country standards.
Abstract: Arguments can be made on both sides of the question of whether a stringent global corporate environmental standard represents a competitive asset or liability for multinational enterprises (MNEs) investing in emerging and developing markets. Analyzing the global environmental standards of a sample of U.S.-based MNEs in relation to their stock market performance, we find that firms adopting a single stringent global environmental standard have much higher market values, as measured by Tobin'sq, than firms defaulting to less stringent, or poorly enforced host country standards. Thus, developing countries that use lax environmental regulations to attract foreign direct investment may end up attracting poorer quality, and perhaps less competitive, firms. Our results also suggest that externalities are incorporated to a significant extent in firm valuation. We discuss plausible reasons for this observation.
Citations
More filters
TL;DR: The authors argue that companies are increasingly asked to provide innovative solutions to deep-seated problems of human misery, even as economic theory instructs managers to focus on maximizing their shareholders' wealt.
Abstract: Companies are increasingly asked to provide innovative solutions to deep-seated problems of human misery, even as economic theory instructs managers to focus on maximizing their shareholders' wealt
4,666 citations
TL;DR: In this article, an empirical analysis of the linkages between environmental strategy and stakeholder management is presented, showing that several simultaneous improvements in various resource domains are required for firms to shift to an empirically significant, higher level of proactiveness.
Abstract: This paper includes an empirical analysis of the linkages between environmental strategy and stakeholder management. First, it is shown that several simultaneous improvements in various resource domains are required for firms to shift to an empirically significant, higher level of proactiveness. Second, more proactive environmental strategies are associated with a deeper and broader coverage of stakeholders. Third, environmental leadership is not associated with a rising importance of environmental regulations, thereby suggesting a role for voluntary cooperation between firms and government. Finally, the linkages between environmental strategies and stakeholder management, based on a sample of 197 firms operating in Belgium, appear more limited than expected. Country-specific characteristics may to a large extent account for these results. Copyright © 2002 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
1,842 citations
TL;DR: In the first stage of industrialization, pollution in the environmental Kuznets curve world grows rapidly because people are more interested in jobs and income than clean air and water, communities are too poor to pay for abatement, and environmental regulation is correspondingly weak as mentioned in this paper.
Abstract: T he environmental Kuznets curve posits an inverted-U relationship between pollution and economic development. Kuznets's name was apparently attached to the curve by Grossman and Krueger (1993), who noted its resemblance to Kuznets's inverted-U relationship between income inequality and development. In the first stage of industrialization, pollution in the environmental Kuznets curve world grows rapidly because people are more interested in jobs and income than clean air and water, communities are too poor to pay for abatement, and environmental regulation is correspondingly weak. The balance shifts as income rises. Leading industrial sectors become cleaner, people value the environment more highly, and regulatory institutions become more effective. Along the curve, pollution levels off in the middle-income range and then falls toward pre-industrial levels in wealthy societies. The environmental Kuznets curve model has elicited conflicting reactions from researchers and policymakers. Applied econometricians have generally accepted the basic tenets of the model and focused on measuring its parameters. Their regressions, typically fitted to cross-sectional observations across countries or regions, suggest that air and water pollution increase with development until per capita income reaches a range of $5000 to $8000. When income rises beyond that level, pollution starts to decline, as shown in the "conventional EKC" line in Figure 1. In developing countries, some policymakers have interpreted such results as conveying a message about priorities: Grow first, then clean up. Numerous critics have challenged the conventional environmental Kuznets curve, both as a representation of what actually happens in the development process and as a policy prescription. Some pessimistic critics argue that crosssectional evidence for the environmental Kuznets curve is nothing more than a
1,455 citations
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors examined the effect of a firm's intangible resources in mediating the relationship between corporate responsibility and financial performance and concluded that there is no direct relationship between corpora responsibility and performance.
Abstract: This paper examines the effects of a firm's intangible resources in mediating the relationship between corporate responsibility and financial performance. We hypothesize that previous empirical findings of a positive relationship between social and financial performance may be spurious because the researchers failed to account for the mediating effects of intangible resources. Our results indicate that there is no direct relationship between corporate responsibility and financial performance—merely an indirect relationship that relies on the mediating effect of a firm's intangible resources. We demonstrate our theoretical contention with the use of a database comprising 599 companies from 28 countries. Copyright © 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
1,420 citations
TL;DR: In this article, the authors compared the environmental performance of family and non-family public corporations between 1998 and 2002, using a sample of 194 U.S. firms required to report their emissions.
Abstract: This paper compares the environmental performance of family and nonfamily public corporations between 1998 and 2002, using a sample of 194 U.S. firms required to report their emissions. We found that family-controlled public firms protect their socioemotional wealth by having a better environmental performance than their nonfamily counterparts, particularly at the local level, and that for the nonfamily firms, stock ownership by the chief executive officer (CEO) has a negative environmental impact. We also found that the positive effect of family ownership on environmental performance persists independently of whether the CEO is a family member or serves both as CEO and board chair.
1,281 citations
Cites background from "Do Corporate Global Environmental S..."
...…scholars have adduced evidence for a positive association between good environmental performance and profi tability (Klassen and McLaughlin, 1996; Dowell, Hart, and Yeung, 2000; King and Lenox, 2002), others have claimed a negative association (Jaffe et al., 1995; Hart and Ahuja, 1996; Sarkis…...
[...]
References
More filters
TL;DR: In this article, a parameter covariance matrix estimator which is consistent even when the disturbances of a linear regression model are heteroskedastic is presented, which does not depend on a formal model of the structure of the heteroSkewedness.
Abstract: This paper presents a parameter covariance matrix estimator which is consistent even when the disturbances of a linear regression model are heteroskedastic. This estimator does not depend on a formal model of the structure of the heteroskedasticity. By comparing the elements of the new estimator to those of the usual covariance estimator, one obtains a direct test for heteroskedasticity, since in the absence of heteroskedasticity, the two estimators will be approximately equal, but will generally diverge otherwise. The test has an appealing least squares interpretation.
25,689 citations
TL;DR: The authors examined the relationship between per capita income and various environmental indicators and found no evidence that environmental quality deteriorates steadily with economic growth, rather, for most indicators, economic growth brings an initial phase of deterioration followed by a subsequent phase of improvement.
Abstract: We examine the reduced-form relationship between per capita income and various environmental indicators. Our study covers four types of indicators: urban air pollution, the state of the oxygen regime in river basins, fecal contamination of ri'ver basins, and contamination of river basins by heavy metals. We find no evidence that environmental quality deteriorates steadily with economic growth. Rather, for most indicators, economic growth brings an initial phase of deterioration followed by a subsequent phase of improvement. The turning points for the different pollutants vary, but in most cases they come before a country reaches a per capita income of $8000. I. INTRODUCTION Will continued economic growth bring ever greater harm to the earth's environment? Or do increases in income and wealth sow the seeds for the amelioration of ecological problems? The answers to these questions are critical for the design of appropriate development strategies for lesser developed countries. Exhaustible and renewable natural resources serve as inputs into the production of many goods and services. If the composition of output and the methods of production were immutable, then damage to the environment would be inextricably linked to the scale of global economic activity. But substantial evidence suggests that development gives rise to a structural transformation in what an economy produces (see Syrquin [1989]). And societies have shown remarkable ingenuity in harnessing new technologies to conserve scarce resources. In principle, the forces leading to change in the composition and techniques of production may be sufficiently strong to more than offset the adverse effects of increased economic activity on the environment. In this paper we address this empirical issue using panel data on ambient pollution levels in many countries. Examination of the empirical relationship between national income and measures of environmental quality began with our *We thank the Ford Foundation, the Sloan Foundation, the John S. Guggenheim Memorial Foundation, the Institute for Policy Reform, and the Centers of International Studies and of Economic Policy Studies at Princeton University for financial support. We are grateful to Peter Jaffee, who tutored us on the various dimensions of water quality, to Robert Bisson, who provided us with the GEMS/ Water data, and to seminar participants at the O.E.C.D. Development Centre and the Institute for International Economic Studies in Stockholm, Sweden, who gave us helpful comments and suggestions. Special thanks go to James Laity, whose research assistance was simply extraordinary.
5,582 citations
TL;DR: In this paper, a natural resource-based view of the firm is proposed, which is composed of three interconnected strategies: pollution prevention, product stewardship, and sustainable development, and each of these strategies are advanced for each of them regarding key resource requirements and their contributions to sustained competitive advantage.
Abstract: Historically, management theory has ignored the constraints imposed by the biophysical (natural) environment. Building upon resource-based theory, this article attempts to fill this void by proposing a natural-resource-based view of the firm—a theory of competitive advantage based upon the firm's relationship to the natural environment. It is composed of three interconnected strategies: pollution prevention, product stewardship, and sustainable development. Propositions are advanced for each of these strategies regarding key resource requirements and their contributions to sustained competitive advantage.
5,339 citations
Additional excerpts
...Market Value?”...
[...]
TL;DR: The authors found that environmental performance and economic performance are positively linked and that industry growth moderate the relationship, with the returns to environmental performance higher in high-growth industries, concluding that it pays to be green.
Abstract: Drawing on the resource-based view of the firm, we posited that environmental performance and economic performance are positively linked and that industry growth moderates the relationship, with the returns to environmental performance higher in high-growth industries. We tested these hypotheses with an analysis of 243 Finns over two years, using independently developed environmental ratings. Results indicate that “it pays to be green” and that this relationship strengthens with industry growth. We conclude by highlighting the study's academic and managerial implications, making special reference to the social issues in management literature.
4,227 citations
01 Sep 1995
TL;DR: The Dutch flower industry has responded to its environmental problems by developing a closed-loop system to reduce the risk of infestation, reducing the need for fertilizers and pesticides, and improving product quality as mentioned in this paper.
Abstract: The need for regulation to protect the environment gets widespread but grudging acceptance: widespread because everyone wants a livable planet, grudging because of the lingering belief that environmental regulations erode competitiveness. The prevailing view is that there is an inherent and fixed trade-off: ecology versus the economy. On one side of the trade-off are the social benefits that arise from strict environmental standards. On the other are industry's private costs for prevention and cleanup -- costs that lead to higher prices and reduced competitiveness. With the argument framed this way, progress on environmental quality has become a kind of arm-wrestling match. One side pushes for tougher standards; the other tries to roll them back. The balance of power shifts one way or the other depending on the prevailing political winds. This static view of environmental regulation, in which everything except regulation is held constant, is incorrect. If technology, products, processes, and customer needs were all fixed, the conclusion that regulation must raise costs would be inevitable. But companies operate in the real world of dynamic competition, not in the static world of much economic theory. They are constantly finding innovative solutions to pressures of all sorts -- from competitors, customers, and regulators. Properly designed environmental standards can trigger innovations that lower the total cost of a product or improve its value. Such innovations allow companies to use a range of inputs more productively -- from raw materials to energy to labor -- thus offsetting the costs of improving environmental impact and ending the stalemate. Ultimately, this enhanced resource productivity makes companies more competitive, not less. Consider how the Dutch flower industry has responded to its environmental problems. Intense cultivation of flowers in small areas was contaminating the soil and groundwater with pesticides, herbicides, and fertilizers. Facing increasingly strict regulation on the release of chemicals, the Dutch understood that the only effective way to address the problem would be to develop a closed-loop system. In advanced Dutch greenhouses, flowers now grow in water and rock wool, not in soil. This lowers the risk of infestation, reducing the need for fertilizers and pesticides, which are delivered in water that circulates and is reused. The tightly monitored closed-loop system also reduces variation in growing conditions, thus improving product quality. Handling costs have gone down because the flowers are cultivated on specially designed platforms. In addressing the environmental problem, then, the Dutch have innovated in ways that have raised the productivity with which they use many of the resources involved in growing flowers. The net result is not only dramatically lower environmental impact but also lower costs, better product quality, and enhanced global competitiveness. (See the insert "Innovating to Be Competitive: The Dutch Flower Industry.") This example illustrates why the debate about the relationship between competitiveness and the environment has been framed incorrectly. Policy makers, business leaders, and environmentalists have focused on the static cost impacts of environmental regulation and have ignored the more important offsetting productivity benefits from innovation. As a result, they have acted too often in ways that unnecessarily drive up costs and slow down progress on environmental issues. This static mind-set has thus created a self-fulfilling prophecy leading to ever more costly environmental regulation. Regulators tend to set regulations in ways that deter innovation. Companies, in turn, oppose and delay regulations instead of innovating to address them. The whole process has spawned an industry of litigators and consultants that drains resources away from real solutions. POLLUTION = INEFFICIENCY Are cases like the Dutch flower industry the exception rather than the rule? …
4,056 citations