Release Inventory (TRI) has spawned a large literature employing aggregate
chemicals release information for firms. Tyteca adapted the ‘productive
efficiency’ approach to environmental performance analysis. Productive efficiency
indicators are dimensionless expressions of the ratio of undesirable outputs (i.e.
emissions of pollution), taking into account the efficiency with which inputs are
transformed into outputs. Normalized indicators are performance measures that
are controlled for some quantity (tonnes of output produced in a year) reflecting
the firm’s activity.
Explaining Environmental Performance
Studies employing performance indicators have sought both to explain how
factors internal (for example, environmental management and technological
factors) and external (for example, market and regulatory pressures) to the firm
influence environmental performance, and to investigate whether there is a link
between firms’ environmental and economic performance. Gallez and Tyteca find
that firm environmental performance measured using an aggregate ‘inputundesirable output’ index was explained by investments in abatement technology,
total environmental investments in the previous year, and by the age of plant.
This latter result is explained by learning effects that become more pronounced
through the life of an industrial plant.
A more recent literature has also emerged about the impact of environmental
information as a regulatory instrument itself.
—
This literature is concerned
with testing the effectiveness of more voluntaristic and market-based approaches
to environmental regulation. It begins with the proposition that better information
is an essential element in reshaping environmental management. By encouraging
more information to be made available, firms will come under social and market
pressures to improve environmental performance. Using both qualitative
(quality of environmental reporting) and quantitative (NO
V
and SO
V
emissions to
air) data, Siniscalco et al. found a positive correlation between the quality of
environmental information produced by a firm and its environmental performance.
R. W. Haines, Environmental performance indicators: balancing compliance with basic economics,
Total Qual. Environ. Manage., 1993, Spring, 367—372.
B. Jaggi and M. Freedman, An examination of the impact of pollution performance on economic
and market performance, J. Business Finance Accounting, 1992, 19, 697—713.
J. S. Naimon, Benchmarking and environmental trend indicators, Total Qual. Environ. Manage.,
1994, Spring, 269—281.
M. Behmanesh, J. A. Roque and D. Allen, An analysis of normalised measures of pollution
prevention, Pollut. Prevention Rev., 1993, Spring, 161—166.
C. Gallez and D. Tyteca, Explaining the environmental performance of firms with indicators,
Ecosystems and Sustainable Development: Advances in Ecological Sciences, Computational
Mechanics Publications, Pensicola, 1997.
P. Lanoi, B. Laplant and M. Roy, Can Capital Markets Create Incentives for Pollution Control?,
The World Bank, Washington DC, 1997.
M. Khanna and L. Damon, EPAs Voluntary 33/50 Program: Impact on Toxic Releases and
Economic Performance of Firms, University of Illinois, 1997.
D. Siniscalco, S. Borghini, M. Fantini and F. Ranghieri, The Response of Companies to
Information-based Environmental Policies, Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei, Milan, 2000
F. Berkhout
172
chemicals release information for firms. Tyteca adapted the ‘productive
efficiency’ approach to environmental performance analysis. Productive efficiency
indicators are dimensionless expressions of the ratio of undesirable outputs (i.e.
emissions of pollution), taking into account the efficiency with which inputs are
transformed into outputs. Normalized indicators are performance measures that
are controlled for some quantity (tonnes of output produced in a year) reflecting
the firm’s activity.
Explaining Environmental Performance
Studies employing performance indicators have sought both to explain how
factors internal (for example, environmental management and technological
factors) and external (for example, market and regulatory pressures) to the firm
influence environmental performance, and to investigate whether there is a link
between firms’ environmental and economic performance. Gallez and Tyteca find
that firm environmental performance measured using an aggregate ‘inputundesirable output’ index was explained by investments in abatement technology,
total environmental investments in the previous year, and by the age of plant.
This latter result is explained by learning effects that become more pronounced
through the life of an industrial plant.
A more recent literature has also emerged about the impact of environmental
information as a regulatory instrument itself.
—
This literature is concerned
with testing the effectiveness of more voluntaristic and market-based approaches
to environmental regulation. It begins with the proposition that better information
is an essential element in reshaping environmental management. By encouraging
more information to be made available, firms will come under social and market
pressures to improve environmental performance. Using both qualitative
(quality of environmental reporting) and quantitative (NO
V
and SO
V
emissions to
air) data, Siniscalco et al. found a positive correlation between the quality of
environmental information produced by a firm and its environmental performance.
R. W. Haines, Environmental performance indicators: balancing compliance with basic economics,
Total Qual. Environ. Manage., 1993, Spring, 367—372.
B. Jaggi and M. Freedman, An examination of the impact of pollution performance on economic
and market performance, J. Business Finance Accounting, 1992, 19, 697—713.
J. S. Naimon, Benchmarking and environmental trend indicators, Total Qual. Environ. Manage.,
1994, Spring, 269—281.
M. Behmanesh, J. A. Roque and D. Allen, An analysis of normalised measures of pollution
prevention, Pollut. Prevention Rev., 1993, Spring, 161—166.
C. Gallez and D. Tyteca, Explaining the environmental performance of firms with indicators,
Ecosystems and Sustainable Development: Advances in Ecological Sciences, Computational
Mechanics Publications, Pensicola, 1997.
P. Lanoi, B. Laplant and M. Roy, Can Capital Markets Create Incentives for Pollution Control?,
The World Bank, Washington DC, 1997.
M. Khanna and L. Damon, EPAs Voluntary 33/50 Program: Impact on Toxic Releases and
Economic Performance of Firms, University of Illinois, 1997.
D. Siniscalco, S. Borghini, M. Fantini and F. Ranghieri, The Response of Companies to
Information-based Environmental Policies, Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei, Milan, 2000
F. Berkhout
172