The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Tightening Environmental Standards: The Benefit-Cost or the No-Cost Paradigm?
Open accessAbstract
This paper takes issue with the Porter-van der Linde claim that traditional benefit-cost analysis is a fundamental misrepresentation of the environmental problem. They contend that stringent environmental measures induce innovative efforts leading to improvements in abatement and production technologies that offset the costs of the regulations. Drawing both on basic economic theory and existing data on control costs, the authors argue that such offsets are special cases. The data indicate offsets are minuscule relative to control costs. There is no free lunch here: environmental programs must justify their costs by the benefits that improved environmental quality provides to society.
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
Porter, M. E. (1991) · Scientific American · doi:10.1038/scientificamerican0491-168 · Cited by 1,540
Cited by
The Porter Hypothesis at 20: Can Environmental Regulation Enhance Innovation and Competitiveness?
Ambec, S., Cohen, M. A., Elgie, S., & Lanoie, P. (2013) · Review of Environmental Economics and Policy · doi:10.1093/reep/res016 · Cited by 1,928
Does It Pay to Be Green? A Systematic Overview
Stefan, A., & Paul, L. (2008) · Academy of Management Perspectives · doi:10.5465/amp.2008.35590353 · Cited by 1,759
Green R&D for eco-innovation and its impact on carbon emissions and firm performance
Lee, K.-H., & Min, B. (2015) · Journal of Cleaner Production · doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.05.114 · Cited by 1,028
Greenwash vs. Brownwash: Exaggeration and Undue Modesty in Corporate Sustainability Disclosure
Kim, E.-H., & Lyon, T. P. (2015) · Organization Science · doi:10.1287/orsc.2014.0949 · Cited by 932
Framing the Elusive Concept of Sustainability: A Sustainability Hierarchy
Marshall, J. D., & Toffel, M. W. (2005) · Environmental Science & Technology · doi:10.1021/es040394k · Cited by 297
Strategic HRM as social design for environmental sustainability in organization
DuBois, C. L. Z., & Dubois, D. A. (2012) · Human Resource Management · doi:10.1002/hrm.21504 · Cited by 277
The impact of the European Emission Trading Scheme on multiple measures of economic performance
Marin, G., Marino, M., & Pellegrin, C. (2018) · Environmental and Resource Economics · doi:10.1007/s10640-017-0173-0 · Cited by 195
Market responses to firms’ voluntary carbon disclosure: Empirical evidence from the United Kingdom
Alsaifi, K., Elnahass, M., & Salama, A. (2020) · Journal of Cleaner Production · doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.121377 · Cited by 151
Adopt or innovate: Understanding technological responses to cap-and-trade
Calel, R. (2020) · American Economic Journal: Economic Policy · doi:10.1257/pol.20180135 · Cited by 166
Lee, M., Pak, A., & Roh, T. (2024) · Business Strategy and the Environment · doi:10.1002/bse.3755 · Cited by 131
Tools for comparative analysis of alternatives: Competing or complementary perspectives?
Hofstetter, P., Bare, J. C., Hammitt, J. K., Murphy, P. A., & Rice, G. E. (2002) · Risk Analysis · doi:10.1111/1539-6924.00255 · Cited by 58
Metadata
- Authors
- Palmer, K., Oates, W. E., & Portney, P. R.
- Venue
- Journal of Economic Perspectives
- Publisher
- American Economic Association
- Published
- 1995-11-01
- Volume
- 9
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 119-132
- ISSN
- 0895-3309 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2146006314
- Cited by
- 1,744
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 48.32
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
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.
