The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
End‐of‐pipe or cleaner production? An empirical comparison of environmental innovation decisions across OECD countries
Abstract
While both fundamental types of abatement measure mitigate the adverse environmental impacts of production, cleaner production technologies are frequently more advantageous than end‐of‐pipe technologies for environmental and economic reasons. This paper analyzes a variety of factors that might enhance firms' propensity to implement cleaner production technologies instead of end‐of‐pipe technologies. On the basis of a unique facility‐level data set derived from a recent OECD survey, we find a clear dominance of cleaner production in seven OECD countries: 76.8% of the facilities report that they invest predominantly in cleaner production technologies, above all in new production processes, but not so much in new products. Based on a discrete choice model, our estimation results indicate that regulatory measures and the stringency of environmental policies are more important for end‐of‐pipe technologies, while cost savings, general management systems and specific environmental management tools tend to favor clean production. We conclude that improvements towards cleaner production may be reached by the continuous development and wider diffusion of these management tools. Improvements may also be stimulated by widening the cost gap between the two types of technology, for instance by additionally charging for waste and energy use. Copyright © 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd and ERP Environment.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Toward a New Conception of the Environment-Competitiveness Relationship
Porter, M. E., & Linde, C. V. D. (1995) · Journal of Economic Perspectives · doi:10.1257/jep.9.4.97 · Cited by 13,365
Redefining innovation — eco-innovation research and the contribution from ecological economics
Rennings, K. (2000) · Ecological Economics · doi:10.1016/s0921-8009(99)00112-3 · Cited by 3,226
Self-citation
Cited by
Policy mixes for sustainability transitions: an extended concept and framework for analysis
Rogge, K. S., & Reichardt, K. (2016) · Research Policy · doi:10.1016/j.respol.2016.04.004 · Cited by 1,524
Microplastics in Drinking Water: A Review and Assessment
Eerkes-Medrano, D., Leslie, H. A., & Quinn, B. (2019) · Current Opinion in Environmental Science & Health · doi:10.1016/j.coesh.2018.12.001 · Cited by 299
Knowledge transfer and organizational innovation: Impacts of quality and environmental management
Hamdoun, M., Chiappetta Jabbour, C. J., & Ben Othman, H. (2018) · Journal of Cleaner Production · doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.05.031 · Cited by 163
Hasan, M. J., & Rahman, M. S. (2023) · Heliyon · doi:10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e18102 · Cited by 34
Metadata
- Authors
- Frondel, M., Horbach, J., & Rennings, K.
- Venue
- Business Strategy and the Environment
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2006-07-10
- Volume
- 16
- Issue
- 8
- Pages
- 571-584
- ISSN
- 0964-4733 (ISSN-L)
- 1099-0836
- OpenAlex
- W3122419293
- Cited by
- 682
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 31.68
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.