The DOI matches its Crossref record; 44 of the 44 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Revisiting the Porter hypothesis: an empirical analysis of Green innovation for the Netherlands
Open accessAbstract
Almost all empirical research that has attempted to assess the validity of the Porter hypothesis (PH) has started from reduced-form models, for example, single-equation models for estimating the contribution of environmental regulation to productivity. This paper follows a structural approach that allows testing what is known in the literature as the ‘weak’ and the ‘strong’ version of the PH. Our ‘Green Innovation’ model includes three types of eco-investments to explain differences in the incidence of two types of eco-innovation, which are allowed to affect labor productivity. We allow for complementarity between the two types of eco-innovations. Using a comprehensive panel of Dutch manufacturing firm-level data we estimate the relative importance of environmental regulations on eco-investment and eco-innovations. The results of our analysis show a strong corroboration of the weak and a nuanced corroboration of the strong version of the PH.
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
(2001) · RePEc: Research Papers in Economics · Cited by 27,577
Conditional logit analysis of qualitative choice behavior
McFadden, D. L. (1972) · eScholarship (California Digital Library) · Cited by 14,203
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
Cragg, J. G., & Zarembka, P. (1975) · The Canadian Journal of Economics · doi:10.2307/134075 · Cited by 8,342
Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation
Train, K. E. (2003) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511753930 · Cited by 3,890
The Environment and Directed Technical Change
Acemoglu, D., Aghion, P., Bursztyn, L., & Hemous, D. (2012) · American Economic Review · doi:10.1257/aer.102.1.131 · Cited by 3,734
Productivity and Undesirable Outputs: A Directional Distance Function Approach
Chung, Y. H., Färe, R., & Grosskopf, S. (1997) · Journal of Environmental Management · doi:10.1006/jema.1997.0146 · Cited by 2,949
The Economics of Modern Manufacturing: Technology, Strategy, and Organization
Milgrom, P., & Roberts, J. (1990) · American Economic Review · Cited by 2,615
Complementarities and fit strategy, structure, and organizational change in manufacturing
Milgrom, P., & Roberts, J. (1995) · Journal of Accounting and Economics · doi:10.1016/0165-4101(94)00382-f · Cited by 2,559
Environmental Regulation and Innovation: A Panel Data Study
Jaffe, A. B., & Palmer, K. (1997) · Review of Economics and Statistics · doi:10.1162/003465397557196 · Cited by 2,181
Cited by
Wang, Y., Sun, X., & Guo, X. (2019) · Energy Policy · doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2019.06.016 · Cited by 580
Loaning scale and government subsidy for promoting green innovation
Huang, Z., Liao, G., & Li, Z. (2019) · Technological Forecasting and Social Change · doi:10.1016/j.techfore.2019.04.023 · Cited by 561
Guo, Y., Xia, X., Zhang, S., & Zhang, D. (2018) · Sustainability · doi:10.3390/su10040940 · Cited by 341
Metadata
- Authors
- van Leeuwen, G., & Mohnen, P.
- Venue
- Economics of Innovation and New Technology
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 2016-07-15
- Volume
- 26
- Issue
- 1-2
- Pages
- 63-77
- ISSN
- 1043-8599 (ISSN-L)
- 1476-8364
- OpenAlex
- W1551316328
- Cited by
- 349
- References
- 44
- FWCI
- 33.39
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Revisiting the Porter hypothesis: an empirical analysis of Green innovation for the Netherlands. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1080/10438599.2016.1202521
- The paper
- van Leeuwen, G., & Mohnen, P. (2017). Revisiting the Porter hypothesis: an empirical analysis of Green innovation for the Netherlands. Economics of Innovation and New Technology. https://doi.org/10.1080/10438599.2016.1202521
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.
