The social welfare implications of industry self-auditing

The Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA's) audit policy authorizes reduced penalties for firms that voluntarily undertake compliance audits and then correct and report any discovered violations to the agency. While the EPA claims the policy is a success, this paper joins a growing literature in questioning that claim. A game-theoretic model of the audit policy is developed where the goal of enforcement is remediation and the agency is unable to commit to a pre-announced inspection policy. Self-auditing is beneficial because it permits both self-reporting and self-policing to occur; however additional costs are imposed on firms. Self-auditing is more likely to be socially beneficial when the damages caused by violations are large. The current audit policy explicitly excludes violations that result in serious actual or potential harm. When violations are small, as most current disclosures under the audit policy are, firm self-auditing is likely to increase social costs.     

Material interests, moral reputation, and crowding out species protection on private land

We consider how the reputation of being socially responsible works as an effective source of motivation in protecting a public good, such as endangered species. This paper investigates the mechanism design for endangered species protection on private land under asymmetric information about reputation and land quality. We examine optimal monetary transfer by designing an efficient mechanism which takes into account the crowding out effect of monetary rewards on socially responsible behavior. We find landowners who have good reputation contribute more than the optimum level. Landowners with poor reputation sacrifices information rent; rather they buy reputation.     

Heterogeneous firms and the environment: a cap-and-trade program

Currently, cap-and-trade programs are a cornerstone of many countries' climate change policies and proposals. This paper investigates the economic and environmental effects of different climate change policy designs in a general equilibrium setting with heterogeneous firms and monopolistic competition. The analysis predicts that the cap on emissions perfectly defines the environmental quality but has no effect on firms' profits, or decisions to enter or exit the market. In contrast, increasing the share of free allocations of emission allowances, as opposed to auctions, has no effect on environmental quality but reallocates resources among firms toward the most productive ones which has an impact on firms' entry and exit decisions, the mass of firms, and the composition of the market. Firm heterogeneity magnifies these economic effects of changes in the initial allocation of allowances. The paper provides a decomposition of the change in aggregate emissions which takes account of the changes at sector level, across the firms within a sector, and at the firm level.     

Tell the truth or not? The montero mechanism for emissions control at work

We experimentally test the truth-telling mechanism proposed by Montero (2008) for eliciting firms' abatement costs. We compare this mechanism with two well-known alternative allocation mechanisms, free and costly allocation of permits at the Pigouvian price. Controlling for the number of firms and the firms' maximal emissions, we find that, in line with the theoretical predictions, firms over-report their maximal emissions under free allocation of permits and under-report these under costly allocation of permits. Under Montero's mechanism, by contrast, firms almost always report their maximal emissions truthfully. However, in terms of efficiency, the difference between Montero's mechanism and costly allocation disappears with industries including more than one firm.     

Optimal quasi-market choice in the presence of pollution externalities

When the relationship between emissions and ambient pollution is known, it is possible to implement a program to achieve economically efficient pollution levels, even when the control agency knows nothing about the victim's valuation of pollution damages or about emission abatement costs. Unlike a Pigouvian tax, the program provides the correct incentives for entry and exit whether or not marginal damages from a firm's emissions vary over the range of these emissions. Through the provision of “missing” markets, sizable revenues are raised while allocative distortions are corrected.     

Inefficient environmental instruments and the gains from trade

The primary result from the trade and environment literature is that countries never lose from trade liberalization as long as they implement optimal pollution targets or if they hold emissions constant. These results are derived in models where the regulators use efficient instruments such as tradable permits or emission taxes. Regulators, however, continue to prefer command and control instruments. I show that regulation under these inefficient instruments (such as design standards or concentration standards) can lead to net losses under trade liberalization even if emissions are optimally adjusted for trade. Furthermore, holding the line on emissions need not guarantee welfare improvements either. The problem is that institutional distortions, the excess costs of inefficient instruments, can rise with trade and offset the material gains from trade. Hence the presumption that we can achieve gains from trade by considering only the level of emissions fails to recognize that the mode of regulation also matters.     

Incentives to diffuse advanced abatement technology under environmental liability law

Polluting firms with advanced abatement technology at their disposal have incentives or disincentives to share this technology with other polluting firms. The ‘direction’ and extent of those incentives depends on the liability rule applicable and the way technical change impacts marginal abatement costs. We establish that incentives for diffusion are socially optimal under strict liability and socially suboptimal under negligence if technical change lowers marginal abatement costs for all levels of abatement. Negligence may, however, induce better diffusion incentives than strict liability if technical change decreases (increases) marginal abatement costs for low (high) levels of abatement.     

Environmental Auditing in Management Systems and Public Policy

New international standards for environmental auditing are now being actively promoted by public authorities and adopted by private firms. One important feature of these standards is their emphasis on managerial systems and incentives that support a wiser use of environmental resources. This paper studies such a system, in which incentive compensation may be based in part on the results of an environmental audit. It is found that optimal wages after an environmental audit is performed should have a greater range than wages paid when no audit has occurred. It is also shown that the decision to conduct an environmental audit and the size of the expected wage in this case depend crucially on whether the agent's prudence (or precautionary motives) dominates his aversion to risk. It is finally found that the insertion of environmental audits within current management systems would certainly induce a manager to care more about the environment; although this may come at the expense of less concern for other activities, we find plausible circumstances in which properly designed environmental audits overcome such a tradeoff and increase the manager's attention tobothenvironmental and traditional tasks. Some implications of the analysis for environmental public policy are also discussed briefly.     

Regulation with direct benefits of information disclosure and imperfect monitoring

We model the optimal design of programs requiring heterogeneous firms to disclose harmful emissions when disclosure yields both direct and indirect benefits. The indirect benefit arises from the internalization of social costs and resulting reduction in emissions. The direct benefit results from the disclosure of previously private information which is valuable to potentially harmed parties. Previous theoretical and empirical analyses of such programs restrict attention to the former benefit while the stated motivation for such programs highlights the latter benefit. When disclosure yields both direct and indirect benefits, policymakers face a tradeoff between inducing truthful self-reporting and deterring emissions. Internalizing the social costs of emissions, such as through an emissions tax, will deter emissions, but may also reduce incentives for firms to truthfully report their emissions.     

Incentives and prices in an emissions trading scheme with updating

Emissions trading schemes where allocations are based on updated baseline emissions give firms less incentive to reduce emissions for a given quota (or allowance) price. Nevertheless, according to Böhringer and Lange [On the design of optimal grandfathering schemes for emission allowances, Europ. Econ. Rev. 49 (2005) 2041–2055], such allocation schemes are cost-effective if the system is closed and allocation rules are identical across firms. In this paper, we show that the cost-effective solution may be infeasible if marginal abatement costs grow too fast. Moreover, if a price cap or banking/borrowing is introduced, the abatement profile is no longer the same as in the case with an auction (or lump-sum allocation). In addition, we show that with allocation based on updated emissions, the quota price will always exceed marginal abatement costs, possibly misguiding policy makers and investors about abatement costs. Numerical simulations indicate that the quota price most likely will be several times higher than marginal abatement costs, unless a significant share of allowances is auctioned.     

Voluntary corporate environmental initiatives and shareholder wealth

Researchers debate whether environmental investments reduce firm value or actually improve financial performance. We provide some compelling evidence on shareholder wealth effects of membership in voluntary environmental programs (VEPs). Companies announcing membership in EPA's Climate Leaders, a program targeting reductions in greenhouse gas emissions, experience significantly negative abnormal stock returns. The price decline is larger in firms with poor corporate governance structures, and for high market-to-book (i.e., high growth) firms. However, firms joining Ceres, a program involving more general environmental commitments, have insignificant announcement returns, as do portfolios of industry rivals. Overall, corporate commitments to reduce greenhouse gas emissions appear to conflict with firm value maximization. This has important implications for policies that rely on voluntary initiatives to address climate change. Further, we find that firms facing climate-related shareholder resolutions or firms with weak corporate governance standards – giving managers the discretion to make such voluntary environmentally responsible investment decisions – are more likely to join Climate Leaders; decisions that may result in lower firm value.     

Emissions trading systems with cap adjustments

Emissions Trading Systems (ETSs) with fixed caps lack provisions to address systematic imbalances in the supply and demand of permits due to changes in the state of the regulated economy. We propose a mechanism which adjusts the allocation of permits based on the current bank of permits. The mechanism spans the spectrum between a pure quantity instrument and a pure price instrument. We solve the firms׳ emissions control problem and obtain an explicit dependency between the key policy stringency parameter—the adjustment rate—and the firms׳ abatement and trading strategies. We present an analytical tool for selecting the optimal adjustment rate under both risk-neutrality and risk-aversion, which provides an analytical basis for the regulator׳s choice of a responsive ETS policy.     

Emissions standards and ambient environmental quality standards with stochastic environmental services

Many important environmental policies involve some combination of emission controls and ambient environmental quality standards, for instance SO₂ emissions are capped under Title IV of the U.S. Clean Air Act Amendments while ambient SO₂ concentrations are limited under National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). This paper examines the relative performance of emissions standards and ambient standards when the natural environment provides stochastic environmental services for assimilating pollution. For receiving media characterized by greater dispersion in the distribution of environmental services, the optimal emissions policy becomes more stringent, whereas the optimal ambient policy generally becomes more lax. In terms of economic performance, emissions policies are superior to ambient policies for relatively non-toxic pollutants, whereas ambient standards welfare dominate emissions standards for sufficiently toxic pollutants. In the case of combined policies that jointly implement emissions standards and ambient standards, we show that the optimal level of each standard relaxes relative to its counterpart in a unilateral policy, allowing for greater emissions levels and higher pollution concentrations in the environmental medium.     

Emissions standards and ambient environmental quality standards with stochastic environmental services

Many important environmental policies involve some combination of emission controls and ambient environmental quality standards, for instance SO₂ emissions are capped under Title IV of the U.S. Clean Air Act Amendments while ambient SO₂ concentrations are limited under National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). This paper examines the relative performance of emissions standards and ambient standards when the natural environment provides stochastic environmental services for assimilating pollution. For receiving media characterized by greater dispersion in the distribution of environmental services, the optimal emissions policy becomes more stringent, whereas the optimal ambient policy generally becomes more lax. In terms of economic performance, emissions policies are superior to ambient policies for relatively non-toxic pollutants, whereas ambient standards welfare dominate emissions standards for sufficiently toxic pollutants. In the case of combined policies that jointly implement emissions standards and ambient standards, we show that the optimal level of each standard relaxes relative to its counterpart in a unilateral policy, allowing for greater emissions levels and higher pollution concentrations in the environmental medium.     

A political economy model of implementing pollution laws

A model of the implementation process as applied in pollution control is developed. It differs from previous bureaucracy models in that it subjects the control agency to pressures from both firms and procontrol citizen groups. Each of these three actors maximizes utility over environmental quality and some other variable. Environmental quality may be in the actor's preference function or it may represent derived demand. Working through the agency budget and other policy variables, each actor constrains another actor's attempts to move policy in preferred directions. This results in movement toward a concensus environmental quality, not necessarily the efficient quality. Several institutional changes are analyzed to demonstrate the workings of the model.     

Jointly produced exhaustible resources

Natural resources are often produced jointly from composite ores, which in turn are extracted from fixed reserve endowments. In this paper market behavior is examined for such resources, and it is shown how the price of each resource will depend on its demand, and the demands and storage costs for the other resources present in the ore. The measurement of resource scarcity is discussed and the effects of uncertainty over future resource demands are examined. It is shown that the competitive market will still extract, produce, and store at socially optimal rates if firms are risk neutral and the average cost of storage is constant. Policy implications are noted, particularly with reference to government stockpiling programs.     

Multiple receptor ambient monitoring and firm compliance with environmental taxes under budget and target driven regulatory missions

We analyze the potential for an environmental monitoring agency under different regulatory missions to use multiple measures of ambient pollution levels to induce firm compliance via endogenously determined probabilistic firm-level inspections of polluting activities. Departing from previous analyses, we consider a framework where the regulator has multiple, rather than a single, measures of ambient pollution in a setting where many firms are subject to a self-reported emissions tax that is not perfectly enforceable. Under a budget-driven mission, we show that a regulator can fruitfully utilize the added information from multiple ambient monitoring receptors to induce improved environmental compliance through the creation of strategic interactions among firms. Additionally, our results provide new evidence on the relative efficiency of budget- vs. target-driven environmental enforcement missions.     

Emission reduction and profit-neutral permit allocations

The present paper addresses two policy objectives: to implement a market for pollution permits and to make regulation acceptable for businesses. Profit-neutral permit allocations are defined as the number of permits that the regulator should give for free so that post-regulation profits (i.e. a firm's profits in the products market plus the value of the allowances granted for free) are equal to pre-regulation profits. The proposed model is developed by assuming that firms use polluting technologies and compete “à la Cournot”. The paper demonstrates that a low number of free allowances is sufficient to meet these two goals. Moreover, the regulator can fully offset losses, even when the reduction in emissions is high, provided that the sectors concerned are not monopolies, both for isoelastic and linear demand functions.     

Environmental policy à la carte: Letting firms choose their regulation

Under uncertainty, the optimal choice between price and quantity instruments depends on the technology of the regulated firms, which is often private information. We consider an environmental policy that delegates the prices-versus-quantities decision to the firms by offering them the choice between an emissions tax and permit trading. Such an approach is currently used in Swiss climate policy. We provide a detailed characterization of the optimal policy and show that this approach reduces expected social costs compared to a pure tax or permit-trading regime. We demonstrate that an optimal allocation of firms to instruments can be achieved despite substantial informational constraints, and that all firms gain from the introduction of the instrument choice compared to optimally designed single-instrument policies. Furthermore, we discuss the conditions under which this approach is likely to be preferable to a hybrid regulation.