Regulating the environment: Changing from constraint to gentle coercion

Abstract

This article examines the changes in regulatory practices which have taken place in Denmark over the last twenty years. Danish environmental policy has been subject to several rounds of regulatory reform, aimed at streamlining existing regulation and making it more effective. Several new policy instruments have in this process been added to the regulatory repertoire, increasing the flexibility of the regulatory system. The strategic approach to the development and implementation of environmental policy, adopted by the Danish government, marks a change of regulatory regime, i.e. a change in the way environmental problems are perceived and in the choice of instruments to remedy these problems. The article argues that this is the result of the regulatory learning processes, and that the emerging regulatory regime, based on cooperation, represents a different way of harnessing the market forces than traditionally advocated. The article concludes that this regulatory regime opens up for a more systemic approach to preventing pollution.

Canada's voluntary ARET program: Limited success despite industry cosponsorship

“…A central premise of the turn toward more cooperative approaches to environmental policy is that negotiated programs will be more effective because firms will have "bought in" to their objectives (Georg, 1994). One thus might expect a voluntary challenge like ARET that was negotiated with and cosponsored by a broad range of industrial sectors to be more effective than unilateral government challenges such as the U.S. 33/50 and Climate Wise programs.…”

Evaluating environmental regulation in Spain using process control and preventive techniques

“…Some authors suggest that environmental regulations can cause a positive effect on firms' competitiveness level through the encouragement of innovation (Dean and Brown, 1995). Others, instead, consider that the environmental regulation focuses on technology rather than on environmental performance, therefore supporting the development of end-of-pipe solutions instead of pollution prevention measures (Georg, 1994;Nash and Ehrenfeld, 1997); and consequently do not provide incentives for firms to innovate and to go beyond legislative compliance (Brunnermeier and Cohen, 2003). Among the supporters of the first view stand out Porter and Van Der Linde (1995), according to whom the cost involved in complying with the rules can be minimised, and even eliminated, through innovation, which in turn generates other competitive advantages.…”

The potential of environmental regulation to change managerial perception, environmental management, competitiveness and financial performance

“…Earlier papers have highlighted only partial aspects of the whole relationship. For example, some studies have analyzed the relationship between environmental regulation and competitive advantage (Triebswetter and Wackerbauer, 2008;Jaffe et al, 1995;Lanoie et al, 2007;Walley and Whitehead, 1994); other papers have studied the connection between environmental regulation and financial performance (Blacconiere and Northcut, 1997;Little et al, 1995), or between environmental management and competitive advantage (Galdeano-Gómez et al, 2008;González-Benito and González-Benito, 2005). Some papers have analyzed the link between environmental management and financial performance (Lindell and Karagozoglu, 2001;Wahba, 2008).…”

“…The contribution of proactive environmental management to competitive advantage is in terms of reduced costs and increased differentiation (Shrivastava, 1995;Galdeano-Gómez et al, 2008;González-Benito and González-Benito, 2005). Cost advantages typically arise from the adoption of practices that improve the production process (Hart, 1995) increasing its efficiency and reducing input and waste disposal costs (Shrivastava, 1995;Hart, 1995).…”

“…Nash and Ehrenfeld, 1997), and hence stifle innovation while encouraging end-of-pipe solutions rather than proactive pollution solutions (Georg, 1994). End-of-pipe technologies only 'cure' existing pollution (e.g.…”