Innovation Promoted by Regulatory Flexibility

Novak, Paige J.; Arnold, William A.; Henningsgaard, Bruce; Hozalski, Raymond M.; Kessler, Katrina; Lapara, Timothy L.; Parrella, Al; Rogacki, Larry; Thompson, C.A.; Thorson, Randy; Zimmerman, Robert A.; Bott, Charles; Neethling, JB

doi:10.1021/acs.est.5b05394

Cited by 5 publications

(11 citation statements)

References 3 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Porter and Linde Van der (1995) went on to further explain and improve the PH, while emphasizing that one of the important premises of the establishment of the PH is ERF [18]. The ERF signifies that the government formulates environmental protection targets, gives sufficient time and space to the enterprises for implementation, and provides different incentives according to the implementation of ER [26][27][28]. Under this inspiration, more and more studies have found that there are differences in the impact of ER with different degrees of flexibility on enterprise business performance [29][30][31].…”

Section: The Moderating Role Of Erfmentioning

confidence: 99%

Can Environmental Regulation Flexibility Explain the Porter Hypothesis?—An Empirical Study Based on the Data of China’s Listed Enterprises

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Previous studies indicate that the Porter hypothesis (PH) generates controversial and inconsistent conclusions on the impact of environmental regulation (ER) on business performance. As a result, based on the data of China’s A-share listed companies from 2016 to 2018, a moderated mediating effect model is established to examine the relationship between ER, technological innovation and business performance, as well as the moderating effect of environmental regulation flexibility (ERF) on the relationship. Results show that technological innovation has a significant mediating effect on the relationship between ER and business performance. Furthermore, ERF has a negative moderating effect on the mediating effect technological innovation exerted. At a certain degree, the flexible ER could weaken technological innovation’s mediating effects on the relationship between ER and business performance, and further could mitigate the negative impact of ER on both technological innovation and business performance. Also, an inflexible ER intensifies its negative effects on technological innovation and business performance, which is to the disadvantage of enterprises becoming the subject of environmental protection consciously and sustainably.

show abstract

Section: The Moderating Role Of Erfmentioning

confidence: 99%

Can Environmental Regulation Flexibility Explain the Porter Hypothesis?—An Empirical Study Based on the Data of China’s Listed Enterprises

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Indeed, much work remains to truly realize the envisaged concept. 3,9 In the U.S. alone almost 98% of treated wastewater effluent is discharged into the water environment, with only a nominal fraction utilized for nonpotable or potable needs. 35 Even in water-starved California the concept of water reuse remains underutilized.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Some researchers suggests the challenge is sociological and institutional, 9,39 while others contend regulations (and to a lesser degree lack of policy drivers) are the primary impediment. 1,3,23 Indeed, an argument can be made for all these potential barriers. Because WRRFs are (currently) in the business of producing effluent in compliance with regulatory-based permits (to protect human and aquatic system health), innovation failure, in whole or part, can lead to expensive fines.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Developed societies generate billions of tons of waste in the manufacture and use of products and commodities. , Collectively, handling solid and liquid waste streams has historically emphasized a management concept, with a reactive contain-and-control legacy embedded in environmental regulations centered on the goal of protecting human health and the environment. , While treatment has been implemented, the approach is most commonly applied to municipal wastewater, with resultant products (reclaimed water/treated effluent and biosolids) returned to the environment as a means to minimize containment requirements. Considering the complex and heterogeneous nature of waste streams and the potential adverse impacts of mismanagement, coupled with limited opportunities/technologies for otherwise recovering value, certainly the containment/treatment approach has indeed been sensible.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Nevertheless, despite the intrinsic potential of these myriad technologies, limited resource recovery from wastewater has been implemented–even for the more established pathways. Indeed, much work remains to truly realize the envisaged concept. , In the U.S. alone almost 98% of treated wastewater effluent is discharged into the water environment, with only a nominal fraction utilized for nonpotable or potable needs . Even in water-starved California the concept of water reuse remains underutilized .…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Toward Nucleating the Concept of the Water Resource Recovery Facility (WRRF): Perspective from the Principal Actors

Coats

Wilson

2017

Environ. Sci. Technol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Wastewater resource recovery has been advocated for decades; necessary structural pathways were long-ago articulated, and established and emerging technologies exist. Nevertheless, broad wastewater valorization remains elusive. In considering implementation barriers, the argument is made that decision-makers focus on avoiding permit violations and negative publicity by embracing a conservative/safe approach-seemingly ignoring research on economic/environmental benefits. Conversely positing that economics is a primary barrier, we investigated, characterized, and described nontechnical socio-political barriers to realizing wastewater resource recovery. Principal actors in the Pacific NW region of the U.S. (representing a progressive populace facing stringent water quality regulations) were interviewed. Results revealed that economics were, indeed, the primary barrier to implementation/expansion of the WRRF concept. Consistent throughout interviews was a prevalent sense that the "cost of doing something (different)" was a principal consideration in resource recovery actions/policies. Moreover, "economics drives decisions," and "95% the bottom line is money. Show return on investment, it will get people's attention." Who pays was also a concern: "Government isn't going to pay. The states and Federal government won't give any grants, and we can't raise rates." Applying business case evaluations was seen as a pathway to actualizing resource recovery. Most encouragingly, the consensus was that resource recovery is a necessary future paradigm, and that real barriers are surmountable.

show abstract

Be regulated before be innovative? How environmental regulation makes enterprises technological innovation do better for public health

Zhou

Liu

Wang

et al. 2021

Journal of Cleaner Production

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Innovation Promoted by Regulatory Flexibility

Cited by 5 publications

References 3 publications

Can Environmental Regulation Flexibility Explain the Porter Hypothesis?—An Empirical Study Based on the Data of China’s Listed Enterprises

Can Environmental Regulation Flexibility Explain the Porter Hypothesis?—An Empirical Study Based on the Data of China’s Listed Enterprises

Toward Nucleating the Concept of the Water Resource Recovery Facility (WRRF): Perspective from the Principal Actors

Be regulated before be innovative? How environmental regulation makes enterprises technological innovation do better for public health

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About