The impact of environmental taxes and public renewable energy investments on green innovation

Öz

It is very important for companies, as actors in ensuring environmental sustainability and reducing carbon emissions, to implement environmentally friendly innovations in their production processes through various financial policies. Firms are reluctant to adopt these practices, also known as green innovation, on their own, and policies to encourage green innovation are implemented in many countries. This study examines the impact of environmental taxes and public investment in renewable energy, which are seen as fiscal instruments of government, on green innovation for selected EU countries. According to the results obtained in the study using the Emirmahmutoğlu Köse causality approach, a bidirectional causality relationship between environmental taxes and green innovation and a bidirectional causality relationship between public investment in renewable energy and green innovation were found across the panel. Looking at the country results, the countries where environmental taxes are effective in determining the future value of green innovation are Austria, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Hungary, Ireland, and Sweden. The countries where public investment in renewable energy is effective in green innovation are Finland, Italy, and Sweden. The countries where hybrid policies are effective are Finland and Sweden.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Environmental taxes
• Public Renewable Energy Investments
• Green Innovation
• Causality

Çevre vergileri ve kamu yenilenebilir enerji yatırımlarının yeşil inovasyona etkisi

Öz

Çevresel sürdürülebilirliğin sağlanması ve karbon emisyonunun azaltılmasında aktör olan firmaların üretim süreçlerinde çeşitli mali politikalarla çevre dostu inovasyon uygulamaları oldukça önemlidir. Yeşil inovasyon olarak da bilinen uygulamalara firmalar kendi başlarına isteksiz yaklaşmakta birçok ülkede yeşil inovasyonu teşvik edici uygulamalar yapılmaktadır. Bu çalışmada seçilmiş AB ülkeleri için hükümetin mali araçları olarak görülen çevre vergileri ve kamu yenilebilir enerji yatırımlarının yeşil inovasyon üzerinde etkisi araştırılmıştır. Emirmahmutoğlu Köse nedensellik yaklaşımının kullanıldığı çalışmada ulaşılan sonuçlara göre panelin genelinde çevre vergileri ile yeşil inovasyon arasında çift yönlü nedensellik, kamu yenilenebilir enerji yatırımları ile yeşil inovasyon arasında çift yönlü nedensellik ilişkisi tespit edilmiştir. Ülke sonuçlarına bakıldığında, çevre vergilerinin yeşil inovasyonun gelecek değerlerini belirlemede etkili olduğu ülkeler Avusturya, Çek Cumhuriyeti, Danimarka, Finlandiya, Fransa, Almanya, Macaristan ve İrlanda ve İsveç’tir. Kamu yenilebilir enerji yatırımlarının yeşil inovasyon üzerinde etkili olduğu ülkeler Finlandiya, İtalya, İsveç’tir. Hibrit politikalarının etkili olduğu ülkeler ise Finlandiya ve İsveç’tir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Çevre Vergileri
• Kamu Yenilebilir Enerji Yatırımları
• Yeşil İnovasyon
• Nedensellik

Kaynakça

1. Abdullah S. ve Morley B. (2014). Environmental taxes and economic growth: evidence from panel causality tests. Energy Econ (42), 27-33. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eneco.2013.11.013.
2. Aghion, P. ve Howitt, P. (1990). A model of growth through creative destruction. NBER Work Pap, 1-50.
3. Bashir, MF., Benjiang, MA., Shahbaz, M., Shahzad, U., ve Vinh, VX. (2021). Unveiling the heterogeneous impacts of environmental taxes on energy consumption and energy intensity: empirical evidence from OECD countries. Energy (226) 120-366. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2021.120366.
4. Breusch, T.S. ve Pagan, A.R. (1980). The Lagrange multiplier test and its applications to model specification in econometrics, The review of economic studies, 47(1), 239-253.
5. Carraro, C. ve Topa G. (2013). Taxation and Envirmomental Innovation, Carraro C. and Filar, JA (Eds.), Control and game-theoretic models of the environment,. Annals of the International Society of Dynamic Games (AISDG, volume 2) https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107415324.004.
6. Carraro, C. ve Galeotti, M. (1997). Economic growth, international competitiveness and environmental protection: R & D and innovation strategies with the WARM model. Econ Costs Consequences Environ Regul (19) 277-304. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0140-9883(96)01005-5.
7. Carrion-Flores, C. E. ve Innes. R. (2009). Environmental Innovation and Environmental Performance. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, forthcoming.
8. Chen, J.Y., Dimitrov, S. ve Pun, H. (2019). The impact of government subsidy on supply chains sustainability innovation. Omega-Int. J. Manage. Sci., 86, 42–58.

9. Chen, Y.-S., Lai, S.-B. ve Wen, C.-T. (2006). The Influence of Green Innovation Performance on Corporate Advantage in Taiwan. Journal of Business Ethics, 67(4), 331–339. https://doi.org/10.1007/S10551-006-9025-5.
10. Chintrakarn, P. (2008). Environmental regulation and US states’ technical inefficiency. Econ. Lett., 100, 363–365 Drake, D.F., Kleindorfer, P.R. ve Van Wassenhove, L.N. (2016). Technology choice and capacity portfolios under emissions regulation. Prod. Oper. Manag. 25 (6), 1006–1025.
11. Emirmahmutoğlu, F. ve Köse, N. (2011). Testing for granger causality in heterogeneous mixed panels. Economic Modelling, (28), 870-876.
12. European Commission (2019). A European Green Deal, https://ec.europa.eu/info/strategy/priorities-2019-2024/european-green-deal_en.
13. Fan, D., Liang, P. ve Liu B. (2018). Analysis on the double dividend effects of the environmental tax and fee policies in China-the estimation of the system GMM and the panel threshold model. China Environ. Sci. 38 (9), 3576-3583.
14. Fan, X., Chen, K. ve Chen, Y.J. (2023). Is price commitment better solution to control carbon emissions and promote technology investment? Manage. Sci. 69 (1), 325–341.
15. Fernandez, Y., Fernandez Lopez MA. ve Olmedillas Blanco B. (2018), Innovation for sustainability: the impact of R&D spending on CO2 emissions. J Clean Prod;172:3459e67. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.11.001.
16. Guo, J. ve Huang, R. (2022). A carbon tax or a subsidy? Policy choice when a green firm competes with a high carbon emitter. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 29 (9), 12845–12852.
17. Hadri, K. ve Eiji K. (2012), “A Simple Panel Stationarity Test in The Presence of Serial Correlation and A Common Factor”, Economics Letters, 115, 31-34.
18. He P., Ning, J., Yu, Z., Xiong, H., Shen, H. ve Jin H. (2019). Can environmental tax policy really help to reduce pollutant emissions? An empirical study of a panel ARDL model based on OECD countries and China. Sustain Times 11. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11164384.
19. ICC (2013) Environmental Taxation Principles-Fiscal instruments and environmental policy-making. vol. 53. https://doi.org/10.1017/ CBO9781107415324.004;
20. Jichi, I. (2008). Can environmental taxation stimulate growth? The role of indeterminacy in endogenous growth models with environmental externalities. J Econ Dynam Contr;32:1156e80. https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.jedc.2007.05.002.
21. Kafeel, K., Zhou J., Phetkhammai M., Leyan L. ve Khan S. (2023), Green innovation and environmental quality in OECD countries: the mediating role of renewable energy and carbon taxes, Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 31, 2214-2227.
22. Karakaya E., Akkoyun G. ve Hıçyılmaz B., (2023). Sera Gazı Emisyonu Azaltımı İçin Karbonun Fiyatlanması: Karbon Vergisi mi Emisyon Ticareti mi? Ekonomi, Politika & Finans Araştırmaları Dergisi, 8(4): 813-841
23. Kishwar A., Du J., Kirikkaleli D., Oláh J., ve Bakhsh S.(2023), Do environmental taxes, environmental innovation, and energy resources matter for environmental sustainability: Evidence of five sustainable economies,Heliyon,Volume 9, Issue 11, e21577.
24. Krass, D., Nedorezov, T. ve Ovchinnikov, A. (2013). Environmental taxes and the choice of green technology. Prod Oper Manag (22)10, 35-55. https://doi.org/10.1111/poms.12023.
25. Laffont, J-J. ve Tirole, J. (1996). Pollution permits and compliance strategies. J Publ Econ 62, 85-125.
26. Li, D., Zheng, M., Cao, C., Chen, X., Ren, S., ve Huang, M. (2017). The impact of legitimacy pressure and corporate profitability on green innovation: Evidence from China top 100. Journal of Cleaner Production, 141, 41–49. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JCLEPRO.2016.08.123
27. Li, J. ve Wu, D.A. (2020). Do corporate social responsibility engagements lead to real environmental, social, and governance impact? Manag. Sci. 66 (6), 2564–2588.
28. Liu, X., Wojewodzki, M., Cai, Y. ve Sharma, S. (2023). The dynamic relationships between carbon prices and policy uncertainties. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 188, 122325.
29. Manta A. G., Doran N. M., Badircea R. M., Badereu G. ve Taran A. M. (2023). Does the implementation of a Pigouvian tax be considered an effective approach to address climate change mitigation?, Economic Analysis and Policy, 80, 1719-1731.
30. Miceikiene, A., Ciuleviciene, V., Rauluskeviciene, J. ve Streimikiene D. (2018), Assessment of the effect of environmental taxes on environmental protection. Ekon Cas, 66, 286-308.
31. Nakada, M. (2004). Does environmental policy necessarily discourage growth? J Econ Zeitschrift Fur Natl 81, 249-75. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00712-002-0609-y.
32. Nikzad, R. ve Sedigh, G. (2017). Greenhouse gas emissions and green technologies in Canada. Environmental Development, 24, 99–108.
33. Omri, A. (2020). Technological innovation and sustainable development: does the stage of development matter? Environ Impact Assess Rev, 83, 106398.
34. Oueslati, W. (2014). Environmental tax reform: short-term versus long-term macroeconomic effects. J Macroecon, 40,190-201. https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.jmacro.2014.02.004.
35. Özsoy, C. E. (2022), Sınırda Karbon Düzenleme Mekanizması: Türkiye İçin Yeni Bir Risk mi Fırsat mı?, VI. Anadolu International Conference on Economics, May 13-15, Eskişehir, Türkiye.
36. Pesaran, H. M. (2007). “A Simple Panel Unit Root Test in The Presence of Cross-Section Dependence”, Journal of Applied Econometrics, 22(2), 265–312.
37. Pesaran, M. H. (2004). General diagnostic tests for cross section dependence in panels. Cambridge Working Papers in Economics No. 0435 Cambridge University, Cambridge.
38. Pesaran, M. H., ve Yamagata, T. (2008). Testing slope homogeneity in large panels. Journal of Econometrics, 142(1), 50-93.
39. Porter, M.E. ve Van der Linde, C. (1995). Toward a new conception of the environmentcompetitiveness relationship. J. Econ. Perspect. 9 (4), 97–118.
40. Rennings, K. (2000). Redefining innovation- eco-innovation research and the contribution from ecological economics. Ecological Economy, 32(2), 319–332.
41. Ricci, F. (2007). Environmental policy and growth when inputs are differentiated in pollution intensity. Environ Resour Econ, 38, 285-310. https://doi.org/ 10.1007/s10640-006-9076-1.
42. Rong, L., Chen, J. ve Wen, Z. (2022). Dynamic regulation on innovation and adoption of green technology with information asymmetry. Nav. Res. Logist. 69 (1), 110–127.
43. Saunila, M., Ukko, J., ve Rantala, T. (2018). Sustainability as a driver of green innovation investment and exploitation. Journal of Cleaner Production, 179, 631–641. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JCLEPRO.2017.11.211
44. Shahzad, U. (2020), Çevre vergileri, enerji tüketimi ve çevresel kalite: politika çıkarımları ile teorik inceleme. Environ Sci Pollut Res,;27:24848e62. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-020-08349-4.
45. Söderholm, P. (2011). Taxing virgin natural resources: lessons from aggregates taxation in Europe. Resour Conserv Recycl, 55, 911-22. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.resconrec.2011.05.011.
46. Sun, C., Wei, J., Zhao, X. ve Yang, F. (2022). Impact of carbon tax and carbon emission trading on wind power in China: based on the evolutionary game theory. Front. Energy Res. 9, 811234.
47. Swamy, P.A.V.B. (1970). Efficient inference in a random coefficient regression model. Econometrica, 38(2), 311–323.
48. T.C. Dışişleri Bakanlığı, (2022). BM iklim değişikliği çerçeve sözleşmesi. Erişim adresi: https://www.mfa.gov.tr/bm-iklim-degisikligi-cerceve-sozlesmesi.tr.mfa.
49. Toda, H. Y. ve Yamamato, T. (1995). Statistical inference in vector autoregressions with possibly integrated processes. Journal of Econometrics, (66), 225-250.
50. Torres-Reyna, O. (2007). Panel data analysis fixed and random effects using stata, Data & Statistical Services, Priceton University. Erişim adresi: https://www.academia.edu/34441090/Panel_Data_Analysis_Fixed_and_Random_Effects_using_Stat
51. Ullah S., Ozturk I., Majeed M. T. (2021). Do technological innovations have symmetric or asymmetric effects on environmental quality? Evidence from Pakistan. J Cleaner Prod, 316, 128239.
52. Wang, Y. ve Yu, L. (2021), Can the current environmental tax rate promote green technology innovation? - Evidence from China’s resource-based industries, Journal of Cleaner Production, 278,123443.
53. Wang, X., Wang S., Wu K., Zhai C. ve Li Y. (2024). Environmental protection tax and enterprises’ green technology innovation: Evidence from China, International Review of Economics and Finance, 96, 103617.
54. Wang, Z., Sami F., Khan S. Alamri M. A. ve Zaidan A. M. Z. (2023) Green innovation and low carbon emission in OECD economies: Sustainable energy technology role in carbon neutrality target, Sustainable Energy Technologies and Assessments,Volume 59, 103401.
55. Wei, L., Zhang, Y. ve Jia, J. (2023). How do environmental taxes affect green process innovation? Evidence from the Chinese manufacturing industry, Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management, Vol. 34 No. 5,669-693.
56. Weina D., Gilli M., Mazzanti M. (2016). Green inventions and greenhouse gas emission dynamics: a close examination of provincial Italian data. Environmental Economics and Policy Studies, 18, 247–263.
57. World Bank (2020). Carbon pricing dashbord. https:// carbonpricingdashboard.worldbank.org/map_data. [Accessed 6 April 2021].
58. Xia, J. Zheng Y., Yang L. Xiao Y. (2024). Government intervention in green technology innovation: The carrot, the stick or both? Technological Forecasting & Social Change,200,123126.
59. Zhao, L., Zhang, Y., Sadiq, M. (2023). Testing green fiscal policies for green investment, innovation and green productivity amid the COVID-19 era. Econ Change Restruct 56, 2943–2964. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10644-021-09367-z
60. Zhu, X., Zuo, X. ve Li, H. (2021). The dual effects of heterogeneous environmental regulation on the technological innovation of Chinese steel enterprises—based on ahigh-dimensional fixed effects model. Ecological Economy, 188, 1071.
61. Ziyadlı, A. (2021). Yenilenebilir Enerji Üretiminin Ekonomik Büyümeye Etkisi: Türkiye Örneği. Yüksek Lisans Tezi (yayımlanmamış), T.C. Erciyes Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü, İktisat Anabilim Dalı, Kayseri, 101 s.
62. Zolfagharinia, H., Zangiabadi, M. ve Hafezi, M. (2023). How much is enough? Government subsidies in supporting green product development. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 309 (3), 1316–1333.
63. Zou, C., Huang, Y., Hu, S. ve Huang, Z. (2023). Government participation in low-carbon technology transfer: an evolutionary game study. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 188, 122320.