We study firms’ incentives to adopt environmentally friendly technologies in response to emission taxes, focusing on contexts characterized by imperfect compliance and risk aversion. Previous research has analyzed technology adoption incentives and compliance issues under the assumption of risk neutrality. However, the decision to exceed regulatory limits involves risks, as polluting agents may be subject to penalties with some probability. Additionally, there may be uncertainty regarding the impact of green technology adoption on firms’ abatement costs. Therefore, risk preferences may play an important role and should be taken into account. In a baseline model with certainty about future abatement costs, we find that adoption decisions are independent of risk preferences, even when the enforcement policy is so weak that it induces imperfect compliance. In contrast, under uncertainty about future abatement costs, adoption incentives decrease with both risk aversion and weak enforcement, particularly when enforcement relies more on monitoring through higher inspection probabilities rather than deterrence through higher sanctions.

In this paper, we model a differential game played à la Stackelberg between a regulator and a polluting firm in a stock pollution context. The regulator can be a single body deciding on the emission standard and the probability of inspection overtime as functions of the pollution stock. Alternatively, the regulator can delegate the inspection activities to a local agency that maximizes revenues coming from fines net of inspection costs. Although the objective of the agency departs from social welfare, decentralization can be welfare improving, crucially depending on the type of strategic interaction between the local agency and the polluting firm, as well as on the firm anticipating the effects of current pollution decisions on future regulatory policy. Up to our kowledge, this is the first paper dealing with hierarchical regulation in a stock pollution context.

We present a novel model of fraud and certification in green production. We focus on settings where firms decide between a green or a standard version of a product together with an advertising strategy that can include fraud. In addition, green firms can choose to certify their production to guarantee the truthfulness of their claims. This results in four production-advertising possibilities (standard, genuine green, fraudulent green, and certified green), by which we provide new insights about the prevalence of fraud and certification. We characterize the perfect Bayesian equilibrium of the resulting game for given green production costs, certification costs, and consumers' willingness to pay for standard production, and we perform comparative statics for the main parameters of the resulting game. We find that changes in certification and green production costs affect consumers' beliefs differently, whereby increases in certification and decreases in green production costs can broaden the likelihood of fraud. These novel results are robust to different market structures and question the general desirability of public subsidies for promoting green production without accompanying certification.

Peer-to-peer sharing has become increasingly popular in recent years. Many digital platforms exist that allow individuals to use others’ belongings part-time. These platforms explicitly mention their green credentials, as the environmental benefits of such sharing initiatives are often taken for granted. However, there is a recent empirical literature showing evidence of the contrary. We propose a theoretical framework to analyze the economic and environmental implications of peer-to-peer sharing. We present a stylized model where a monopolist supplies a product that is suitable for rent on a sharing platform. Interestingly, we find that the existence of such a platform is typically beneficial for the monopolist, especially in the long run, when she can optimally anticipate the effects of her decisions on the sharing market. Such a scenario is not at all beneficial for consumers, especially for those who rent the good rather than buy it. Moreover, the existence of the sharing platform induces higher use and (under some likely conditions) larger production levels and shorter product lifespans. The combination of these three aspects contributes to a worse environmental impact with sharing, which provides a theoretical rationale for the aforementioned empirical studies.

We present the results of an experimental investigation on incentives to adopt cleaner abatement technologies in the presence of imperfect compliance. We consider two emission control instruments—emission taxes and tradable permits—as well as different combinations of the inspection probability and fine for non-compliance, which can result in full or weak enforcement scenarios. We review and qualify existing theoretical predictions in several ways and find the main result is that allowing for weak enforcement causes tax evasion, reductions in permit prices and lower adoption rates of cleaner abatement technologies. As a result, there are increases in aggregate emissions. Finally, treatments with tradable permits under weak enforcement encounter insufficient trading.

To facilitate the energy transition, regulators can choose between several policy options to stimulate energy-efficient design by firms. One possibility is to target firms directly through standards or subsidies. Alternatively, it is possible to influence firms indirectly by targeting firms’ stakeholders and raising consumer awareness through information campaigns and education. In this paper, we focus specifically on the pivotal role of consumers and we investigate the effectiveness of subsidies, product standards, and education in improving firms’ environmental performance through energy-efficient product design. In particular, we investigate the importance of the interaction effect between the regulation and consumers’ environmental awareness under different market structures. We find that a policy based on a product standard can counteract the negative effects of crowding-out consumers’ intrinsic motivation in a monopoly setting, although this counteracting effect is less powerful under a duopoly. However, a subsidy does not provide such a backup system and the full effect of crowding-out will be visible.

We analyze optimal pollution standards and enforcement strategies in settings where environmental damages depend on accumulated pollution, and enforcement is socially costly. We assume that a regulator and a representative polluting firm interact in a Stackelberg differential game, and we specifically allow the firm to pollute above the limit, and pay the corresponding fine. A crucial element is how progressive the fine is with respect to the degree of non-compliance. Some of our results contradict the related literature on the control of stock pollutants under full-compliance. In particular, we find that setting standards dependent on the pollution stock (setting quantities) is preferred if fines are sufficiently non-linear; while setting fines dependent on the pollution stock (setting prices) is preferred if fines are linear or almost linear, and specially when the environmental problem is particularly harmful.

In this paper we study the relationship between market power in emission permit markets and endogenous technology adoption. We find that the initial distribution of permits, in particular, the amount of permits initially given to the dominant firm, is crucial in determining over- or under-investment in relation to the benchmark model without market power. Specifically, if the dominant firm is initially endowed with more permits than the corresponding cost effective allocation, this results in under-investment by the dominant firm and over-investment by the competitive fringe, regardless of the specific amount of permits given to the latter firms. The results are reversed if the dominant firm is initially endowed with relatively few permits. Also, the presence of market power results in a divergence of both abatement and technology adoption levels with respect to the benchmark scenario of perfect competition, as long as technology adoption becomes more effective in reducing abatement costs.

In this paper we present a Stackelberg differential game to study the dynamic interaction between a polluting firm and a regulator who sets pollution limits overtime. At each time, the firm settles emissions taking into account the fine for non-compliance with the pollution limit, and balances current costs of investments in a capital stock which allows for future emission reductions. We derive two main results. First, we show that the optimal pollution limit decreases as the capital stock increases, while both emissions and the level of non-compliance decrease. Second, we find that offering fine discounts in exchange for firm’s capital investment is socially desirable. We numerically obtain the optimal value of such discount, which crucially depends on the severity of the fine. In the limiting scenario with a very large severity of the fine, the optimal discount implies that no penalties are levied, since the firm shows adequate adaptation progress through capital investment.

Regulations are frequently based on a uniform standard, which applies to all facilities within a single industry. However, implementation of many of these regulations does not lead to uniform limits due to considerations of local conditions in real policy settings. In this paper, we theoretically examine the relationships among the stringency of effluent limits imposed on individual polluting facilities by permit writers, environmental protection agencies’ monitoring decisions, and the ambient quality of the local environment. In particular, we explore the establishment of effluent limits when (1) the national emission standard represents only an upper bound on the local issuance of limits and (2) negotiation efforts expended by regulated polluting facilities and environmentally concerned citizens play a role. We find that the negotiated discharge limit depends on the political weight enjoyed and the negotiation effort costs faced by both citizens and the regulated facility, along with the stringency of the national standard and local ambient quality conditions.

In this paper, we consider a hierarchical model of environmental regulation and enforcement to study the standard setting decision made by a national regulator and the monitoring decision made by a local enforcement agency. The problem is interesting due to differences in both available information and objectives at local and national levels. Generally, the national regulator is less informed than the local agency about the characteristics of the polluting agents. This leads to the use of uniform standards and the delegation of the enforcement activity to the local agency. On the one hand, the local agency partially corrects for the inefficiency caused by uniform standards by setting a differentiated inspection strategy. On the other hand, the level of the standard is distorted to partially correct for the inefficiency caused by the divergence between national and local objectives. The interactions between local and national decisions are influenced by the size of the divergence in objectives and the level of environmental damages.

We analyze the strategic decision of firms to voluntarily certify corporate social responsibility (CSR) practices in a context where other firms can falsely pretend to be socially responsible. Equilibrium outcomes are crucially determined by consumers' beliefs about the credibility of firms' CSR claims, which depend in turn on the (expected) fines for fraud. First, we show that an increase in such fines extends the likelihood of firms investing in CSR, at the expense of a reduced likelihood of certification. Second, fraud only arises when the fines for fraud are at intermediate levels and some CSR firms do not certify their practices. Third, the presence of fraud comes at a cost for firms by inducing lower equilibrium prices than in settings with honest marketing. Fourth, the coexistence of fraud and certification induces differentiation price premia below marginal production costs and certification price premia above marginal certification costs. Lastly, social welfare rises as fines for fraud increase.

In this paper, we analyze whether it is socially desirable that fines for exceeding pollution standards depend not only on the degree of non-compliance but also on technology investment efforts by the polluting firms. For that purpose, we consider a partial equilibrium framework where a representative firm chooses the investment effort and the pollution level in response to an environmental policy composed of a pollution standard, an inspection probability and a fine for non-compliance. We find that the fine should strictly decrease with the investment effort when (i) there are administrative costs of sanctioning; (ii) the optimal policy induces non-compliance; and (iii) either the fine is sufficiently convex in the degree of non-compliance or the investment effort decreases marginal abatement costs significantly.

Over time, inspection agencies gather information about firms’ pollution levels and this information may allow agencies to differentiate their monitoring strategies in the future. If a firm is less successful than its peers in reducing emissions, it faces the risk of being targeted for increased inspections in the next period. This risk of stricter monitoring might induce high-abatement cost firms to mimic low-abatement cost firms by choosing lower emission levels, while the latter might try to avoid being mimicked. We explain firms’ compliance decisions and the inspection agency's monitoring strategy by means of a signaling game which incorporates dynamic enforcement and learning. Interestingly, we show that the ongoing signaling game between firm types might lead to firms over-complying with the emission standard.

An increasing number of environmental protection programs offers financial compensation to farmers in exchange for conservation services. Incentive-compatible contracts can be designed to mitigate excess compensation, but the extant literature suggests that outcomes are always second-best so that other instruments (such as conservation auctions) may be preferred. We argue that the claim regarding the first-best solution never being incentive-compatible is correct if all conservation costs are variable in nature; if there are fixed costs too, the first-best compensation scheme may be incentive-compatible after all. Given the relevance of fixed costs in conservation issues, we conclude that incentive-compatible contracts should be given a second chance as a policy measure to induce conservation.

We study the incentives to adopt advanced abatement technologies in the presence of imperfect compliance. Interestingly, incentives under emission taxes and pollution abatement subsidies are the same that in the perfect compliance scenario. However, under emission standards imperfect compliance can increase firms’ incentives to invest, whereas under an emission permit mechanism investment incentives decrease only if widespread non-compliance induces a reduction in the permit price. Our results are valid for fairly general characteristics of the monitoring and enforcement strategies commonly found in both, theoretical and empirical applications.

Despite the well-known static cost-inefficiency of uniform emission standards to control pollution, governments continue to use them in a variety of settings. In this paper, we show that inspection agencies can sometimes use their informational advantage to design monitoring strategies that complement uniform emission standards in restoring efficiency.

Investment subsidies are widely used to induce adoption of new technologies that can lower the (marginal) cost of reducing emissions. To economize on these subsidies, governments would like to distinguish between firms that need to receive a subsidy to adopt a new technology, and firms that would adopt that technology even without subsidies. We show that policies consisting of a menu of emission taxes and investment subsidies can potentially induce firms to self-select.

Many conservation programs offer financial compensation to farmers in exchange for socially desired services, such as soil conservation or biodiversity protection. Realization of the conservation objective at minimum cost requires payments to just cover the extra costs incurred by each individual (type of) farmer. In the presence of information asymmetries regarding costs, incentive-compatible contracts can be designed to mitigate excess compensation, but these typically only provide partial improvement because of several distortions. We argue that these distortions are inevitable only if all conservation costs are variable in nature. If there are fixed costs too, we find that the least-cost solution can be incentive compatible. We identify the exact conditions under which these maximum savings can be obtained and conclude that, given the relevance of fixed costs in conservation services provision, incentive—compatible contracts deserve a second look.