We assess the importance of information flows from universities to innovative firms and determine the relative contribution of formal collaboration and pure knowledge spillovers in this process. We find that spillovers provide the most benefit to firms that imitate existing technologies or those that are involved in incremental innovation, on the other hand highly innovative firms appear to derive most benefit from collaborative research with foreign universities. Indeed, highly innovative firms are at the frontier of the academic knowledge in their industry. Therefore, they do only marginally benefit from aggregate (or industry-wide) spillovers. They require new forms of academic knowledge that they acquire through formal cooperation with foreign universities.

In this paper, we use online search engines and archive collections to examine the popularity of socially responsible investing (SRI) in newspapers and academic journals. A simple content analysis suggests that most of the papers on SRI focus on financial performance. This profusion of research is somewhat puzzling as most of the studies used roughly the same methodology and obtained very similar results. So, why are there so many studies on SRI financial performance? We argue that the academic literature on SRI is mostly data driven: the famous 'looking for the keys under the lamppost' syndrome. The question of the financial performance of the SRI funds is certainly relevant but maybe too much attention has been paid to this issue, whereas more research is needed on a conceptual and theoretical ground, in particular the aspirations of SRI investors, the relationship between regulation and SRI as well as the assessment of extra-financial performances.

Border adjustments are currently discussed to limit the possible adverse impact of climate policies on competitiveness and carbon leakage. We discuss the main choices that will have to be made if the European Union implements such a system alongside with the EU ETS. Although more analysis is required on some issues, on others some design options seem clearly preferable to others. First, the import adjustment should be a requirement to surrender allowances rather than a tax. Second, the general rule to determine the amount of allowances per ton imported should be the product-specific benchmarks that the European Commission is currently elaborating for a different purpose (i.e. to determine the amount of free allowances). Third, this obligation should apply when the exported product is registered at the EU border, and not after the end of the year as is the case for domestic emitters. Fourth, the export adjustment should take the form of a rebate on the amount of allowances a domestic emitter has to surrender. Five, this rebate should equal the abovementioned product-specific benchmarks, not the emissions of the particular exporting plant or firm. Finally, the adjustment does not have to apply to consumer products but mostly to basic products. Keywords AbstractBorder adjustments are currently discussed to limit the possible adverse impact of climate policies on competitiveness and carbon leakage. We discuss the main choices that will have to be made if the European Union implements such a system alongside with the EU ETS. Although more analysis is required on some issues, on others some design options seem clearly preferable to others. First, the import adjustment should be a requirement to surrender allowances rather than a tax. Second, the general rule to determine the amount of allowances per ton imported should be the product-specific benchmarks that the European Commission is currently elaborating for a different purpose (i.e. to determine the amount of free allowances). Third, this obligation should apply when the exported product is registered at the EU border, and not after the end of the year as is the case for domestic emitters. Fourth, the export adjustment should take the form of a rebate on the amount of allowances a domestic emitter has to surrender. Five, this rebate should equal the above-mentioned product-specific benchmarks, not the emissions of the particular exporting plant or firm. Finally, the adjustment does not have to apply to consumer products but mostly to basic products.

The EU ETS has been criticised for threatening the competitiveness of European industry and generating carbon leakage, i.e. increasing foreign greenhouse gas emissions. Two main options have been put forward to tackle these concerns: border adjustments and output-based allocation, i.e. allocation of free allowances in proportion to current production. We compare various configurations of these two options, as well as a scenario with full auctioning and no border adjustment. Against this background, we develop a model of the main sectors covered by the EU ETS: electricity, steel, cement and aluminium. We conclude that the most efficient way to tackle leakage is auctioning with border adjustment, which generally induces a negative leakage (a spillover). Another relatively efficient policy is to combine auctioning in the electricity sector and output-based allocation in exposed industries, especially if free allowances are given both for direct and indirect emissions, i.e. those generated by the generation of the electricity consumed. Although output-based allocation is generally less effective than border adjustment to tackle leakage, it is more effective to mitigate production losses in the sectors affected by the ETS.Keywords : Emission trading, border adjustment, output-based allocation, competitiveness, carbon leakage. Limiter les fuites dans le système européen d'échange de quotas d'émission de gaz à effet deserre : ajustement aux frontières ou allocation basée sur la production courante ? RésuméLe système européen d'échange de quotas d'émission de gaz à effet de serre (GES) a été critiqué comme menaçant la compétitivité de l'industrie européenne et comme générant des fuites de carbone, c'est-à-dire une augmentation des émissions de GES à l'étranger. Principalement, deux options ont été avancées pour traiter ces problèmes : l'ajustement aux frontières et l'allocation basée sur la production, c'est-à-dire une allocation gratuite de permis proportionnelle à la production courante. Nous développons un modèle représentant les principaux secteurs inclus dans le système européen de quotas (électricité, acier, ciment et aluminium) et analysons plusieurs configurations de chacune de ces options, ainsi qu'un scénario avec enchères et sans ajustement aux frontières. Nous trouvons qu'une allocation par l'intermédiaire d'enchères, complétée par un ajustement aux frontières, permet de limiter le plus les fuites de carbone, voire de diminuer les émissions dans les pays hors UE27 (fuites négatives). Une autre politique relativement efficace est de combiner des enchères pour le secteur de l'électricité et une allocation basée sur la production pour les secteurs exposés aux fuites de carbone, en particulier si la quantité de permis distribuée tient compte des émissions directes et indirectes (liées à la génération de l'électricité consommée). Bien que cette dernière option soit généralement moins efficace qu'un ajustement aux frontières pour limiter les fuites de carbone, elle permet néanmoins de réduire les pertes de...

No abstract

The performance of socially responsable funds to gauge the social responsibility of the French SRI funds. On the other hand, we evaluate the "Strategy Distinctiveness Index" proposed by Sun, Wang and Zheng (2011), which captures managerial skill by assessing the extent to which a fund's returns differ from those of its peers. Our study provides some salient results. First, as expected, we show that SRI mutual funds do not outperform the market, whatever the performance measure considered. Then, we confirm empirically that the SRI screening process may have a cost: the financial performance of SRI funds is hurt by the exclusion of non-socially responsible stocks. Like Barnett and Salomon (2006), we also find that this initial negative effect is partly offset as the number of screens increases. Further, we show that only sectoral screens (such as avoiding sin stocks) pull down financial performance, while transversal screens (commitment to UN Global Compact Principles, ILO/Rights at Work, etc.) do not have any impact. Moreover, it is not clear whether one of the ESG factors influences the financial performance of SRI funds more than the others, but these issues need further analysis. Lastly, when the quality of the SRI selection process is proxied by the rating provided by Novethic, its impact is not significant, while a higher strategy distinctiveness amongst SRI funds, which also gives information on the quality of the selection process, is associated with better financial performance.

International audienceIn this study, we examine whether the financial performances of socially responsible investment (SRI) mutual funds are related to the features of the screening process. Based on a sample of French SRI funds, we find evidence that a greater screening intensity slightly reduces financial performance (but the relationship runs in the opposite direction when screening gets tougher). Further, we show that only sectoral screens - such as avoiding 'sin' stocks - decrease financial performance, while transversal screens - commitment to UN Global Compact Principles, ILO/Rights at Work, etc. - have no impact. Lastly, when the quality of the SRI selection process is proxied by the rating provided by Novethic, its impact is not significant, while a higher strategy distinctiveness amongst SRI funds, which also gives information on the quality of the selection process, is associated with better financial performance

International audienceThis paper compares the results of the three state of the art climate-energy-economy models IMACLIM-R, ReMIND-R, and WITCH to assess the costs of climate change mitigation in scenarios in which the implementation of a global climate agreement is delayed or major emitters decide to participate in the agreement at a later stage only. We find that for stabilizing atmospheric GHG concentrations at 450 ppm CO 2-only, postponing a global agreement to 2020 raises global mitigation costs by at least about half and a delay to 2030 renders ambitious climate targets infeasible to achieve. In the standard policy scenario-in which allocation of emission permits is aimed at equal per-capita levels in the year 2050-regions with above average emissions (such as the EU and the US alongside the rest of Annex-I countries) incur lower mitigation costs by taking early action, even if mitigation efforts in the rest of the world experience a delay. However, regions with low per-capita emissions which are net exporters of emission permits (such as India) can possibly benefit from higher future carbon prices resulting from a delay. We illustrate the economic mechanism behind these observations and analyze how (1) lock-in of carbon intensive infrastructure, (2) differences in global carbon prices, and (3) changes in reduction commitments resulting from delayed action influence mitigation costs. 2011 Springer Science+Business Media B.V