Can environmental governance lower toxic emissions? A panel study of U.S. high‐polluting industries

Abstract

Firms have increasingly adopted environmental governance mechanisms in the form of environmental compensation and environmental board committees. The current study examines the argument that such environmental governance mechanisms contribute to lower toxic emissions in high‐polluting industries. The sample comprises firms that were part of the S&P 500 from the years 2006 to 2011 and were mandated to report toxic emissions to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency under the Toxic Release Inventory program. A panel regression model with propensity score matching was employed to minimize endogeneity bias. The results indicate that environmental compensation is a compelling incentive to motivate managers to invest in long‐term and highly uncertain environmental projects. Likewise, the presence of an environmental board committee appears to be significant, suggesting that directors contribute to a firm's strategy with their expertise and political influence. This research also found evidence supporting the cumulative adoption of both environmental governance mechanisms in enhancing environmental performance and the firm's legitimacy.

Performance evaluation of reverse logistics in food supply chains in a circular economy using system dynamics

“…Environmental concerns related to input measurements (environmental internalities) include energy, materials, water use, or landfill area (Georgiadis & Besiou, 2008, 2009); output measurements (environmental externalities) include emissions containing liquid and solid pollutants as well as greenhouse gas (GHG) such as CO 2 , methane (CH 4 ), and NO (Abduaziz, Cheng, Tahar, & Varma, 2015) that contribute to global warming. Improved environmental performance can be achieved by pollution prevention initiatives with a resulting positive impact on manufacturing and business performance (Kanashiro, 2020). Moreover, the modeling of environmental concerns including waste disposal, GHG, and energy consumption during production is regarded as the most pressing priority for the future of RL models (Bazan, Jaber, & Zanoni, 2016).…”

Environmental policy stringency and comparative advantage of environmental sensitive goods: a study of textile exports in G20 countries

“…Over the years, various environmental policies exert pressure on exporters, but it is still not clear whether such measures significantly affect trade or not (Brander and Taylor, 1997; Rafindadi and Usman, 2019). It has been revealed that certain ESGs are going through a phase change due to increasing environmental strictness (Kanashiro, 2020; Nguyen et al , 2021). The varying pattern of export performance of ESGs in G20 is rarely explored, and the attributes of dynamic comparative advantages are missing.…”

Climate change exposure and internal carbon pricing adoption

“…Matching is carried out by pairing treatment and control units that are alike in terms of observable characteristics (Dehejia & Wahba, 2002). Cassiman and Golovko (2011) use a matching model framework to address endogeneity in a study on innovation and exports while Kanashiro (2020) uses PSM to examine whether environmental governance mechanisms contribute to lowering toxic emissions in high‐polluting industries. In our study, observations are matched based on firm‐level characteristics, that is, size, leverage, return on assets, board independence, and the percentage of women on the board.…”