The differential impacts of coercive pressure from environmental law and proactive environmental strategy on corporate environmental performance: The case study of a pulp and paper company

Abstract

Pulp and paper companies are characterized by high-energy consumption and high-emission in production, placing a heavy burden on the environment. Exploring ways to improve their environmental performance is urgently needed. External coercive pressure from environmental law and internal proactive environmental strategy both enable companies to perform better, but little is known about the difference between them. To close this knowledge gap, our analysis is conducted on a case company in pulp and paper industry to compare the differential impacts of the New Environmental Protection Law of China and the proactive environmental strategy on its environmental performance. In addition, accurately evaluating the environmental performance of pulp and paper companies is essential while research on this topic is scant. Therefore, a novel environmental performance evaluation system for pulp and paper companies (EPESPP) is constructed, including not only internal but also external evaluation indexes based on news reports of various media measured by SNOWNLP sentiment analysis. According to the system, the environmental performance of the case company from 2010 to 2018 is evaluated by the entropy-weight-based catastrophe progression method (EWCPM). The results of our case study show that the implementation of a proactive environmental strategy is more conducive to comprehensively improving corporate environmental performance. In other words, the driving effect of the New Environmental Protection Law is not as strong as that of the proactive environmental strategy.

Leveraging business failure to drive eco‐innovation adoption: An integrated conceptual framework

“…First, by integrating the highly dispersed scholarly works on learning from failure (Edmondson, 2011;Shepherd, 2003) and green innovation (Demirel & Kesidou, 2011;Kesidou & Demirel, 2012;Zheng et al, 2023), this study offers an integrated conceptual framework of the mechanisms through which the collapse of peer organizations can motivate firms' green innovation efforts. The study further contributes to the ongoing scholarly dialogue on environmental sustainability (Campra et al, 2023;Esposito et al, 2023;G oes et al, 2023;Gu & Xie, 2022) and business failure (Kücher & Feldbauer-Durstmüller, 2019;Mellahi & Wilkinson, 2004) by deepening researchers' insights into the mechanisms through which business failure insights can be harnessed and mobilized toward organizational innovation efforts. In addition, despite the growing interest in elucidating the consequences of business failure, such as employee layoffs and financial losses (Mellahi & Wilkinson, 2004;Semadeni et al, 2008;Simmons et al, 2014;Wiesenfeld et al, 2008), there is still a lack of clarity regarding the mechanisms through which failure experiences can be harnessed to deliver positive outcomes.…”

Does Technological Innovation Efficiency Improve the Growth of New Energy Enterprises? Evidence from Listed Companies in China

“…The catastrophe progression method involves indicator ranking in the evaluation process. Subjective methods such as expert evaluation are often used to determine the ranking, which increases the subjective influence of human factors and reduces the reliability of the evaluation results [80]. The entropy weight method is a method of objective weighting, and its basic idea is to determine the weight according to the amount of information contained in the index entropy value [36].…”

Spatial–temporal distribution measurement of input–output efficiency of the water–energy–food nexus of the Yangtze River Economic Belt, China

“…On the one hand, the backward technology makes efficient use of natural resources in these areas unable to be effectively utilized and transformed. On the other hand, the single industrial structure focusing on heavy industry, which results in highenergy consumption and high emission in production (Gu and Xie, 2022), intensifies the generation of unexpected output. At the same time, it shows that the single policy on water resources, energy, and food has not brought an obvious positive impact to these areas in recent years.…”