Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 351

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

The innovation impact of the EU Emission Trading System — Findings of company case studies in the German power sector

Open access
Rogge, Karoline S., Schneider, Malte, Hoffmann, Volker H.·2011·Ecological Economics
DOI 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2010.09.032
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

This paper provides a detailed analysis of how the European Emission Trading System (EU ETS) as the core climate policy instrument of the European Union has impacted innovation. Towards this end, we investigate the impact of the EU ETS on research, development and demonstration (RD&D), adoption, and organizational change. In doing so, we pay particular attention to the relative influences of context factors (policy mix, market factors and public acceptance) and firm characteristics (value chain position, technology portfolio, size and vision). Empirically, our qualitative analysis is based on multiple case studies with 19 power generators, technology providers and project developers in the German power sector which were conducted in 2008/09. We find that the innovation impact of the EU ETS has remained limited so far because of the scheme's initial lack of stringency and predictability and the relatively greater importance of context factors. Additionally, the impact varies significantly across technologies, firms, and innovation dimensions and is most pronounced for RD&D on carbon capture technologies and organizational changes. Our analysis suggests that the EU ETS on its own may not provide sufficient incentives for fundamental changes in corporate innovation activities at a level which ensures political long-term targets can be achieved.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2010.09.032

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

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

Show all 2 references

Research works printed but not linked: 42

  1. Ahman, 2007, A ten-year rule to guide the allocation of EU emission allowances, Energy Policy, 35, 1718, 10.1016/j.enpol.2006.04.007 · DOI
  2. Armbruster, 2008, Organizational innovation: the challenge of measuring non-technical innovation in large-scale surveys, Technovation, 28, 644, 10.1016/j.technovation.2008.03.003 · DOI · Paper page
  3. Ashford, 1985, Using regulation to change the market for innovation, Harvard Environmental Law Review, 9, 419
  4. Betz, 2004, Designing national allocation plans for EU-emissions trading — a first analysis of the outcomes, Energy and Environment, 15, 375, 10.1260/0958305041494657 · DOI
  5. Betz, 2010, In or out: efficient inclusion of installations in an emissions trading scheme?, Journal of Regulatory Economics, 37, 162, 10.1007/s11149-009-9109-0 · DOI
  6. Betz, 2006, EU emissions trading: an early analysis of national allocation plans for 2008–2012, Climate Policy, 6, 361, 10.1080/14693062.2006.9685608 · DOI
  7. Christensen, 1995, Explaining the attackers advantage — technological paradigms, organizational dynamics, and the value network, Research Policy, 24, 233, 10.1016/0048-7333(93)00764-K · DOI · Paper page
  8. del Río González, 2005, Analysing the factors influencing clean technology adoption: a study of the Spanish pulp and paper industry, Business Strategy and the Environment, 14, 20, 10.1002/bse.426 · DOI · Paper page
  9. del Río González, 2009, The empirical analysis of the determinants for environmental technological change: a research agenda, Ecological Economics, 68, 861, 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2008.07.004 · DOI · Paper page
  10. del Rio, 2009, Interactions between climate and energy policies: the case of Spain, Climate Policy, 9, 119, 10.3763/cpol.2007.0424 · DOI
  11. Eisenhardt, 1989, Building theories from case study research, Acad. Manage. Rev., 14, 532, 10.2307/258557 · DOI · Paper page
  12. Ellermann, 2008, New entrant and closure provisions: how do they distort?, The Energy Journal, 29, 63, 10.5547/ISSN0195-6574-EJ-Vol29-NoSI-5 · DOI · Paper page
  13. Engau, 2009, Effects of regulatory uncertainty on corporate strategy—an analysis of firms' responses to uncertainty about post-Kyoto policy, Environmental Science & Policy, 12, 766, 10.1016/j.envsci.2009.08.003 · DOI
  14. Engau, C., Hoffmann, V.H., in press. Corporate response strategies to regulatory uncertainty: evidence from uncertainty about post-Kyoto regulation. Policy Sciences. 6-7-2010 · DOI
  15. Fagerberg, 2009, Innovation studies—the emerging structure of a new scientific field, Research Policy, 38, 218, 10.1016/j.respol.2008.12.006 · DOI · Paper page
  16. Fischer, 2008, Environmental and technology policies for climate mitigation, Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 55, 142, 10.1016/j.jeem.2007.11.001 · DOI · Paper page
  17. Frondel, 2008, What triggers environmental management and innovation? Empirical evidence for Germany, Ecological Economics, 66, 153, 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2007.08.016 · DOI · Paper page
  18. Frondel, 2007, End-of-pipe or cleaner production? An empirical comparison of environmental innovation decisions across OECD countries, Business Strategy and the Environment, 16, 571, 10.1002/bse.496 · DOI · Paper page
  19. Gagelmann, 2005, The impact of emission trading on innovation — science fiction or reality?, European Environment, 15, 203, 10.1002/eet.387 · DOI
  20. Gibbert, 2008, What passes as a rigorous case study?, Strateg. Manage. J., 29, 1465, 10.1002/smj.722 · DOI · Paper page
  21. Hart, 1995, A natural-resource-based view of the firm, Academy of Management Review, 20, 986, 10.2307/258963 · DOI · Paper page
  22. Hekkert, 2007, Functions of innovation systems: a new approach for analysing technological change, Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 74, 413, 10.1016/j.techfore.2006.03.002 · DOI · Paper page
  23. Hoffmann, 2007, EU ETS and investment decisions: the case of the German electricity industry, European Management Journal, 25, 464, 10.1016/j.emj.2007.07.008 · DOI
  24. Hoffmann, 2009, Regulatory uncertainty: a reason to postpone investments? Not necessarily, Journal of Management Studies, 46, 1227, 10.1111/j.1467-6486.2009.00866.x · DOI · Paper page
  25. Hoffmann, 2008, A taxonomy for regulatory uncertainty—application to the European Emission Trading Scheme, Environmental Science & Policy, 11, 712, 10.1016/j.envsci.2008.07.001 · DOI
  26. Horbach, 2008, Determinants of environmental innovation — new evidence from German panel data sources, Research Policy, 37, 163, 10.1016/j.respol.2007.08.006 · DOI · Paper page
  27. Jaffe, 2002, Environmental policy and technological change, Environmental & Resource Economics, 22, 41, 10.1023/A:1015519401088 · DOI · Paper page
  28. Kruger, 2007, Decentralization in the EU emissions trading scheme and lessons for global policy, Review of Environmental Economics and Policy, 1, 112, 10.1093/reep/rem009 · DOI
  29. Mazzanti, 2006, Economic instruments and induced innovation: the European policies on end-of-life vehicles, Ecological Economics, 58, 318, 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2005.06.008 · DOI
  30. Mickwitz, 2008, The role of policy instruments in the innovation and diffusion of environmentally friendlier technologies: popular claims versus case study experiences, Journal of Cleaner Production, 16, 162, 10.1016/j.jclepro.2007.10.012 · DOI
  31. Neuhoff, 2006, Allocation, incentives and distortions: the impact of EU ETS emissions allowance allocations to the electricity sector, Climate Policy, 6, 73, 10.1080/14693062.2006.9685589 · DOI · Paper page
  32. Newell, 1999, The induced innovation hypothesis and energy-saving technological change, Quarterly Journal of Economics, 114, 941, 10.1162/003355399556188 · DOI · Paper page
  33. Oltra, 2005, Environmental innovation and clean technology: an evolutionary framework, International Journal of Sustainable Development, 8, 153, 10.1504/IJSD.2005.008888 · DOI
  34. Pavitt, 1984, Sectoral patterns of technical change: towards a taxonomy and a theory, Research Policy, 13, 343, 10.1016/0048-7333(84)90018-0 · DOI · Paper page
  35. Rehfeld, 2007, Integrated product policy and environmental product innovations: an empirical analysis, Ecological Economics, 61, 91, 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2006.02.003 · DOI · Paper page
  36. Requate, 2005, Dynamic incentives by environmental policy instruments — a survey, Ecological Economics, 54, 175, 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2004.12.028 · DOI · Paper page
  37. Rogge, 2010, The impact of the EU ETS on the sectoral innovation system of power generation technologies – Findings for Germany, Energy Policy, 38, 7639, 10.1016/j.enpol.2010.07.047 · DOI
  38. Schleich, 2009, Incentives for energy efficiency in the EU Emissions Trading Scheme, Energy Efficiency, 2, 37, 10.1007/s12053-008-9029-3 · DOI · Paper page
  39. Schneider, 2009, Navigating the global carbon market — an analysis of the CDM's value chain and prevalent business models, Energy Policy, 38, 277, 10.1016/j.enpol.2009.09.017 · doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2009.09.017
  40. Soete, 1979, Firm size and inventive activity — evidence reconsidered, European Economic Review, 12, 319, 10.1016/0014-2921(79)90024-2 · DOI
  41. Taylor, 2005, Control of SO2 emissions from power plants: a case of induced technological innovation in the US, Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 72, 697, 10.1016/j.techfore.2004.11.001 · DOI
  42. Taylor, 2008, Beyond technology-push and demand-pull: lessons from California's solar policy, Energy Economics, 30, 2829, 10.1016/j.eneco.2008.06.004 · DOI

Cited by

Metadata

Authors
Rogge, K. S., Schneider, M., & Hoffmann, V. H.
Venue
Ecological Economics
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2011-01
Volume
70
Issue
3
Pages
513-523
ISSN
0921-8009 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1016/j.ecolecon.2010.09.032
OpenAlex
W2040962823
Cited by
351
References
2
FWCI
31.38
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
green
Licence
  • www.elsevier.com/tdm/userlicense/1.0/ (tdm)
  • www.elsevier.com/legal/tdmrep-license (tdm)

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.