發(fā)展中國家的企業(yè)環(huán)境行為的決定性因素
 

緒論
 

近年來，越來越多人意識(shí)到且討論關(guān)于發(fā)展中國家的公司績(jī)效。人們普遍認(rèn)為，發(fā)展中國家的環(huán)境法規(guī)可能是很無力的，且似乎在司法制度中存在腐敗。對(duì)于工業(yè)污染控制的傳統(tǒng)方式就是去建立需要削減排放的法規(guī)。發(fā)展中國家的政府沒有足夠的正式規(guī)定，缺乏技術(shù)性資源。約束這些限制，他們有效地執(zhí)行環(huán)境法規(guī)，與預(yù)算能力相結(jié)合，（看看例如Dasgupta et al..,1998 Drenzer 2000 Ghangadharan,2001）此外，不斷且持續(xù)增加的全球化增加了對(duì)于環(huán)境影響的關(guān)注度，因?yàn)槟壳暗陌l(fā)展中國家的調(diào)控框架還未被有效地實(shí)施，且全球化擁有對(duì)普遍存在在那些國家的環(huán)境條件的消極影響。成型的環(huán)境法規(guī)在國家之間是不同的，因?yàn)樗麄冊(cè)谀切﹪抑械奶囟ū尘皸l件下，設(shè)計(jì)并實(shí)施?？鐕睦碚撔曰A(chǔ)材料的區(qū)別在于環(huán)境法律，因此這是由于環(huán)境質(zhì)量和經(jīng)濟(jì)優(yōu)越性的賦值區(qū)別。

Determinants Of Firms Environmental Performance In Developing Countries Economics Essay
 

INTRODUCTION

 

In the recent years, there has been an increasing awareness and discussion about the environmental performance of firms in developing countries. It is generally argued that the environmental regulations in developing countries might be weak and there seem to be corruption in the judicial system. The conventional formal approach to industrial pollution control is to establish laws requiring cutting emissions. Governments from developing countries have inadequate formal regulation and lack of technical resources. Combined with budget constraint these limit their ability to effectively enforce environmental regulations (see e.g. Dasgupta et al., 1998, Drenzer 2000, Ghangadharan, 2001,). Moreover, continuous and increasing globalization gives rise to concerns about environmental impacts because the current regulatory framework in developing countries are not enforced effectively and globalisation has had proven negative impact on the environmental conditions prevailing in those countries. Formal environmental regulations vary from one country to another country because they are designed and implemented in the context particular conditions of those countries. The theoretical underpinnings for cross-country difference in environmental regulations are, thus, due to the difference in the valuation of environmental quality and economic priorities. Even if the developing countries had the same identical conventional formal environmental regulations, corruption in bureaucracy and implementation, inspection and enforcement bottlenecks could shape the outcomes differently (see e.g. Huq and Wheeler, 1993, Dasgupta et al., 1997).

 

There are at least three well known hypotheses that primarily focus on the level and nature of environmental pollution across the world. One of them argues that globalization offers firms’ to decide on the opportunities and take advantage of difference between national regulations. Thus, countries with low level formal environmental regulations encourage firms’ to invest in pollution-insensitive industries which gives rise to the so-called ‘pollution haven’ (Walter, 1982). “Pollution Haven Hypothesis” predicts gradual transfer or relocation of the firm led pollution from high level income to low level income countries. It is argued that high level countries have strict environmental regulations and strong enforcement compared to that of low income countries. Increasing trade liberalization and foreign investment push the government for lower production cost in developing countries by neglecting laws to protect environmental regulation that force them to enter “race to the bottom” in order to attract higher investment and become “pollution havens” (see e.g. Walter, 1982, Mani and Wheeler 1997, Wheeler, 1999, Javorcik and Wei 2004). In this process, developed countries are benefited while developing countries are losing their environment in the course of globalization. However, “Factor Endowment Hypothesis” differs with this hypothesis in respect of endowment which determines trade. It asserts that developed countries are more adversely affected by pollution because “capital-intensive” firms are more environmentally damaging than “labour-intensive” processes. Finally, “Environmentally Kuznet-Curve Hypothesis” predicts an inverted U shape curve which describes how a developing country reaches highest level of pollution with her advancement in industrialization process. This effect suddenly decelerates and eventually reverses with her increasing income level.#p#分頁標(biāo)題#e#

 

In contrast, however, few researchers ended with results that contradict with the hypotheses discussed above. For example Tobey (1990) and Ferrantiano (1997) argue that cost of environmental protection is not the significant determinant for firms to invest in developing countries. Empirical studies have generally failed to show that increasing Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) in pollution-insensitive industries in developing countries, who have the lower level enforcement and regulations (see e.g. Leonard and Dukerson, 1982, Leonard, 1988, Jaffe, et al., 1995,). As a result, there is a growing interest in the potential for firm’s environmental behaviour to achieve environmental goals in support of formal regulation both in developed and developing countries. Firms are more likely to adopt any international environmental regulations or practise in order to increase their environmental image all over the world. Firm’s environmental performance alludes to adoption of social norms such as Environmental Management System (EMS) or the world wide ISO 14000 series [1] .

 

In general, globalization raises firm’s self-regulation in several ways. Firstly, it can be expected that foreign firms and their subsidiaries are more likely to adopt environmental actions unlike the domestic firms and in touch with foreign firms through supply chain domestic firms increase their self-regulation (see, Cole et al., .2009). Secondly, with growing foreign investment in the developing countries, foreign firms transfer advanced environmental technologies and better environmental management (Antweiler et al., 2001; Levinson, 2007; Dean and Lovely, 2008). Finally, globalization might increase export to developed countries where consumers have preference for environment-friendly products or have market compliance that assists firm’s better environmental performance in developing countries. Many empirical studies have concluded that trade might be beneficial for the environment (see e.g. Dasgupta et al.1997; Antweiler et al. 2001, Winser and Epstein, 2005; Gangadharan, 2005).

 

Turning back from globalization to the firm-level characteristics for environmental performance, firms have the same identical low level regulations in developing countries but with a large variation in environmental performance. Empirical studies have argued that firms only adopt better environmental performance in low regulations only when compelled to do so to access new market and to satisfy consumer’s preferences. Thus, firm’s image and competitions come out as the main determinants for the firm’s environmental performance (see e.g. Hetting et al.,1996, Dasgupta et al., 2000). These kinds of mixed empirical evidences necessitate further and more focused study on the firm-level characteristics that influence firms to adopt better environmental performance in developing countries. However, the theoretical dichotomy first came in the literature on firm-level characteristics in environmental audit and management from Sinclair-Desgagne and Gabel (1997) who describe how the environmental auditing could help firm to better their performance. Kollman et al. (2001) indirectly and Aragon-correa et al.,(2003) directly argue that technology, knowledge, training, managerial skills and attitudes will affect the firm’s environmental management though at times may be contingent upon such other factors as complexity and uncertainty of the business environment.#p#分頁標(biāo)題#e#

 

In the light of these diverse and conflicting contentions, this paper examines the factors influence firms’ response to environmental damage both in external and internal context for a sample 694 firms in the Philippines and 900 firms in Indonesia. Firstly, we analyse whether external factors like globalization (mainly Export and FDI) has any positive linkage with the firm’s environmental performance both in the Philippines and Indonesia. While empirical studies have examined and discussed the effect of globalization on firm’s environmental behaviour in industry level in developing countries (see e.g. Huq and Wheller, 1993, Hettige et al.,1996, Dasgupta et al., 1998 & 2000.Cole et al.,2003), few studies concentrate on this issue in firm-level. By examining whether the introduction to globalization encourages or discourages to increase firm’s self-regulation, we attempt to contribute to the wider globalization and the environmental performance debate in the economics literature at the firm-level in developing countries (see e.g. Dasgupta et al.,1998, Christman and Taylor 2001, Maining and Dagupta, 2006, Motta , 2006, Cole et al., 2007, , Cole et al.,2008).

 

Secondly, we examine the extent to which a range of firm-specific internal factors such as Firm size, Training, Supervisors and Technology influence firms to adopt better environmental practise. An additional aim of the study is to examine and identify those firm-level characteristics variables which could encourage and discourage to increase firms’ environmental performance in both the sample countries. The main rationale for the proposed study lies in the fact that most of the empirical studies on firm-level characteristics in environmental self-regulation have based their studies on developed countries (see e.g. Arora and Cason, 1996, Gray and Deily, 1996, Nakamura et al. 2001, Cole et al., 2005a, Cole et al.,2005b.). In addition, none of the previous studies on developing countries attempted to examine the relationship between the ISO 14000 (international standard on environment management) and firm-level characteristics.

 

The rest of the paper will proceed as follows. Section 2 presents a brief review of the empirical literature on globalization, firm-specific external factors and the environmental performance. This section also includes a discussion of firm’s formal and informal regulation both in developed and developing countries. Section 3 then provides an overview of the source of the data used in the study and describes its characteristics. However, this section analyses primary statistics of the study. Section 4 presents methodology and the econometric model used in the investigation. Section 5 presents the empirical results of the study with detailed analysis of the findings and probable policy implications. Section 6 analyses the sensitivity of the regressions. In section 7, a summary of the findings are reported and analysed with a brief discussion of their implications ad recommendations for future research.#p#分頁標(biāo)題#e#

 

Literature Review

 

Neoclassical economic literatures consider firms as unitary actors seeking to maximize profit by reducing cost. In general, firms only adopt environmental actions if those policies and projects are demonstrated as potentially profitable. Over the last decade, studies have provided numerous important insights about the determinants of a firm’s environmental performance at industry as well as firm-level. These studies can be categorised into three types according to the degree of importance given to internal and external factors which could influence firm’s environmental behaviour.

 

The first group emphasises on factors that can be seen as arising from social and economic contexts. Among these factors are public and shareholders pressures, regulations enforcement, market demand, community pressure, customer demand, liability, capital market, firm’s image, media and social responsibility ( see e.g. Huq and Wheeler, 1992; Ashford, 1993; Cramer and Schot, 1993; Laplante and Lanoie, 1994; Hartmen et al., 1995; Henrique sans Sadorsky, 1996; Dasgupta et all., 1997; Bhatnagar and Cohen 1997; Maning and Dasgupta, 2006; )

 

The second group considers cognitive and attitudinal aspects of the firm’s internal factors such as perceptions, environmental awareness, experience or environmental training and the ethics, personality, efficacy and leadership of firm’s managers and CEOs (Dasgupta et al. 1998; Cole et al.2007; Cole et al 2008). This group also deliberates on the economic efficiency and opportunity factors such as local competition, access to new markets and the risk and uncertainty of the innovative process (see e.g. Cramer and Schot 1993; Dasgupta et al., 1997; Andrews, 1998).

 

The third group focuses on factors that hamper the greening of industry. Such factors include the lack of technological opportunities and the necessity of generating a new knowledge base prior to attaining a sustainable industrial development; the industrial and trade relationships across the supply chain; the relation between producers and suppliers; the firm’s technological and organisational endowments; technological trajectories and so on (see e.g. Ashford, 1993; den Hond, 1996; Kemp, 1994; Schot et al., 1994, Dasgupta et al. 1997; Levinson, 2007; Dean and Lovely, 2008; Cole et all 2008;)

 

In a famous article published in 1991, Porter (1991) reports, by adopting environmental regulations that reduce pollution which could be decrease firm cost and an increase competitiveness of firms. But this so- called ‘Porter Hypothesis’ has been criticised by many economists as lacking sufficient empirical evidence (see e.g. Palmer et al.,1995, Reyanud et al. 2006). Pollution Haven Hypothesis (Walter 1982) on the other hand, argues that an increasing pollution scenario in developing countries is due to low barriers and formal regulations. This hypothesis has also been considered controversial because of lack of empirical evidence. Alongside this, many empirical studies have concluded that with growing worldwide trading or inward FDI firms are more likely adopt better environmental performance (see e.g. Tobey 1990, Hetting et al, 1996, Dasgupta et al, 2000; Cole et al.2009;). Moreover, the recent literatures on trade and pollution in developed countries argue that trade leads to technological change which reduce pollution. For example, Levinson, 2007 reports that US manufacturing firms have reduced the pollution over 30 years but increased its production. The main reason for pollution reduction in US manufacturing firms is the technological changes. Similar kind of positive relationship between trades, technology and pollution reduction has been found in few other recent studies as well (see e.g. Cole et al. 2005; Dean and Lovely 2008). In a survey on Bangladeshi fertilizer and wood pulp industries, Huq and Wheeler (1993) argue that importing technology from OECD countries who maintain strict environmental regulations have better environmental performance. In contrast, Dasgupta et al. (1998) claim that their result does not find any influence of OECD economics in Mexican manufacturing firms but find the firms with ISO14001 recognition have better environmental performance.#p#分頁標(biāo)題#e#

 

In the absence of tight environmental regulations in developing countries, firms might adopt international norms such as ISO 14000 series to strengthen their market position and access new markets in developed countries. Government policies can also encourage firms to adopt such international environmental norms when there are visible rewards or recognition for such achievements. Even punishing those without such recognition can also be a substitute for this kind of encouragement. Burleigh (1997) notes that the major financial benefits are usually experienced at the beginning of adoption the Environmental management Systems (EMS) which is also supported by Laoire et al (1994) and Welford (1996). However, Shah (1996) argues that incentives for adoption of EMS encourage firms to reinvest. Nakamura et al. (1991) find that adoption of environment norms (ISO 14001) encourages for better environmental performance and publishing the status of the firms’ environmental behaviours enforce better environmental competition among the firms. According to Tietenberg and Wheeler (2001) regulatory agency in Indonesia organizes colour rating program and publicly discloses the environment performance of firms. This program has been very successful to reduce emission because colour rating is directly linked with firm’s image and market structure. An industry level study from World Bank in four Asian countries (Bangladesh, India, Thailand and Indonesia), Hartman, et al. (1995) suggest that abatement of pollution has a weak positive relation with formal regulation but has a strong relation with informal regulation such as competitiveness and community pressure. But their result contradict with Dasgupta et al.(2000) who argue that formal regulation pressures is an important determinant at plan level. Thus environmental issues could help firms to achieve credit benefits, better raw material efficiencies, and minimization of cost of waste, better company image and sustainable relation with other stakeholders. Hamilton and Zilberman (2006) divide all goods into two types, non-polluting goods and polluting goods; and their result proves that non-polluting goods decrease fraud and increase outputs as well as profits while Jahie (2006) reports that waste discharge fees in China brought better results than adopting environmental actions.

 

However, few researchers ended with results that contradict with the implication of environmental norms. For example Vidovic and Khanna (2007) find that participation in the voluntary program EPA’S 33/50, does not have any positive implication on firm’s emission reduction. They added that the decline in emission observed by the trend that started before 1991 has been anything but consequences of the 33/50 program. By researching on the pulp and paper industries in Quebec, Barla (2007) shows that growing interest in voluntary measures to address environmental pollution produces better results while industries with only ISO certification show relatively low success in this regard.#p#分頁標(biāo)題#e#

 

The theoretical underpinnings of a causality relation between pollution reduction and firm-level characteristics came from Sinclair-Desgagne and Gabel (1997) who indicate how firm’s environmental audit improves environmental performance without adversely affecting other factors. In addition, Aragon-Correa and Sharma (2003) demonstrates that technology, managerial skills and attitudes affect environmental management although depending upon the uncertainty and complexity of business environment. Deily (2007) investigates firm-level characteristics and the decisions of firms in the US steel industry to identify compliance with air pollution regulation. In Japan, export, FDI, firm size, age and marketing are found to be significant determinants for the firms to adopt environmental behaviour (see e.g. Nakamura et al., 2001; Cole et al. 2005).

 

In contrast, empirical studies in developing countries at firm-level that analyse the determinants of firm’s environmental performance are limited. Dasgupta et al. (1998) find in Mexican manufacturers that firm’s size, technology; education and training are important determinants of the firm’s environmental performance. In addition, Cole et al. (2009) find the environmental spillovers from foreign firms to domestics firms [2] . By using firm-level data on manufacturing firms in Ghana, Cole, Eilliott and Strobl (2007) come up with the result that foreign ownership and firm’s decision makers who have foreign experience or training are more likely to adopt better environmental performance.

 

Data and Descriptive Statistics

 

In this paper, we use firm-level data from a World Bank survey conducted to examine globalization and firm’s characteristics to adopt environmental performance. Under the World Bank supervision team, the data was collected by personal interview of individual firms during 1998-1999 in the East Asian and Pacific Region (Philippines, Indonesia, Thailand, Korea Republic and Malaysia) in order to identify regional impact of financial crises at micro level [3] . It covers 1996 to 1998 and was available online from 2004. Our data is from cross-section of 900 manufacturing firms in Indonesia and 694 manufacturing firm in Philippine. We utilize firm-level data for 1997 in order to minimize endogeneity problems.

 

We examine the in the Philippines and Indonesian manufacturing firms because both countries have identical environmental questionnaires and sectors in the data set.

 

 

In addition, firm size is defined by employment ranges, with small firms employing 20-49 workers, medium firm 50-149 workers, accounting for 53 percent of the survey and large firms employing more than 150 workers, account for 47 percent of the sample [4] . To determine our dependent variable, firms’ environmental performance, the survey asks whether firm has got any ISO 14000 recognition. Table 2 lists the summary of descriptive statistics for the sample of 900 and 694 observations in both country Philippines and Indonesia. Among the 900 firm in Indonesia, 150 firms have obtained ISO 14001 certification, comparing 16.67 percent of total sample. Philippine firms have 134 ISO 14001 certifications, comparing 19.31 percentage of total sample. Table 2 indicates that the average export is 0.53 in Philippine and 0.38 in Indonesia. This high mean of export supports the observation that the outputs of Philippine are more export oriented. The average ratio of FDI indicates that Indonesian firms have lower foreign investment comparing with Philippines foreign investment.

 

 

 

In order to examine the determinants of the firm’s environmental performance for both countries, dependent variable is ISO14000 certificate which is used as a dummy variable that equal to one if firm has the ISO certificate and zero otherwise. To analyse globalization impact on firm’s environmental performance, we look at the variables that relate to openness of a firm. To test the globalization hypothesis, we first consider Export variable. It is widely argued that export oriented firms are more likely to indicate higher level of environment management. Export is measured as a dummy variable that equal one if the firm undertook some portion of its production for exporting in 1997. Perceived explanations for this might be that export oriented firms are faced with greater international competition and compliances from importers. FDI is our second globalization variable. It might be possible that such firms invest worldwide, use advance technology and similar environmental standards both in developing and developed countries. In addition, stock market penalise firms for negative environmental news (Maningi et al.2006). To estimate globalization impacts on firm’s environmental behaviours, subcontract variable is measured as dummy variable that equal one if firms accept or give subcontract to other firms, otherwise zero. Importing of firm’s input is measured as dummy variable that equals to one if the firm imports its inputs. We use subcontract and importing of firm’s input variables to present any environment spillovers because Cole et al (2009) identify the evidence of environmental spillovers in Argentinean firms [5] . We also use firm’s financial transactions with banks as one of our globalization indicator because a number of studies suggest that banks are more likely to extend loans to the clean firms (see for example, Laplanate and Lanoie 1994). We consider large firms and small firms but drop medium firms in the estimation for many empirical studies suggest that large firms are more likely to adopt environmental management than the medium ones (see e.g. Cole et al. (2006) & (2009),). In order to explain the relationship between ISO14000 and globalization, we use Probit estimation in the paper [6] . The first equation is as follows for both countries;#p#分頁標(biāo)題#e#

 

ISO=α0+ β0Large Firm + β1Small Firm + β2 Export + β3Import+ Inputs + β4FDI + β5Subcontract + β6 Bank Tran. + Sector Dummies + ?t (1)

 

In addition, we analyse the technological effects on firm’s environmental performance. By adding R&D, Technology and Machine age in to equation one, we examine whether firm’s internal technological factors have any influence to adopt better environmental performance. R&D is measured one if firm has R&D expenditure, other wise zero. It is generally argued that the relative size of intangible assets such as goodwill, knowledge capital (R&D) and other management capabilities that firms own have high correlation with firms’ capacity and incentives to cope successfully with the contemporary environmental issues that many manufactures face. Firms with high R&D expenditure are more likely to find technological solution to their environmental problems and these firm’s are more innovative. We estimate technology is a dummy variable, equal to one if the machineries are automated, otherwise zero for manual machineries. The data set allows identifying machine age which equal to one if the machine age is less than four years, otherwise zero. These technological firm-level variables assist us to analyse the technological determinants of firm’s environmental behaviours in both countries. Second equation can be estimated is as follows for both countries;

 

ISO=α0+ β0Large Firm + β1Small Firm + β2 Export + β3Import+ Inputs + β4FDI + β5Subcontract + β6 Bank Tran. + β7 Technology + β8 Machine age+ β9R&D + Sector Dummies + ?t (2)

 

In equation 3a and 3b, we examine the relation between the firm’s environmental performance, firm’s external factor Globalization and firm’s internal factors Technology and human capital. The data set allows us to examine the firm’s human capital variables such as training and number of supervisors. It is generally thought that employees any training helps to perform better environmental practise. However, in our third equations, the percentage of supervisor helps to analyse the relation between firm’s environmental behaviour and technicians. In contrast, non-skilled workers variable help to examine negative relation with our dependent variable. Secondary education variable is measured a dummy variables for Philippine but it is not available for Indonesia so that Board of directors variable is used as a proxy for Indonesia. The equation is as follows;

 

ISO=α0+ β0Large Firm + β1Small Firm + β2 Export + β3Import+ Inputs + β4FDI + β5Subcontract + β6 Bank Tran. + β7 Technology + β8 Machine age+ β9R&D + β10 Training + β 11 Supervisor + β12Secondary Edu.+ β13Nonprod Worker + Sector Dummies + ?t#p#分頁標(biāo)題#e# (3a)

 

ISO=α0+ β0Large Firm + β1Small Firm + β2 Export + β3Import+ Inputs + β4FDI + β5Subcontract + β6 Bank Tran. + β7 Technology + β8 Machine age+ β9 R&D + β10 Training + β11 Supervisor+ β12Nonprod Worker + β13Board of Director+ Sector Dummies + ?t (3b)

 

5. Results

 

5.1 Globalization.

 

Of particular interest in the globalization literature, in the table 3 we report the relation between globalization and firm’s self-regulation from the first equation for both countries. Large firm, Export, number of banks transaction and subcontract are found to be significant and positive while import input is determinant negatively for Philippine firms. However, Export and Large firm are positively related in all Probit specifications with firms’ better environmental performance in Indonesia while Small firm is negatively significant. Moreover, large firm export and number of banks transaction are found positive relation in all Probit equations with firm’s environmental performance in Philippine. Thus, coefficient of export supports the hypothesis that export oriented firm is more likely to seek ISO 14001certification than other firms. Firms do not spend less in environmental protection to reduce production costs when facing competition in foreign markets. This result implies that firms’ environmental performance is consistence with corporate internationalization strategies, supporting the objective of facilitating international trade (Bansal and Hunter, 2003; Levinson 2007). Further more this finding also coincides with evidence suggesting that export oriented firms bear a heavy load in relation to supply chain greening from multinational customers (Christman and Taylor, 2001; Cole et, al. 2009). This result indicates that firms need to meet environmental concerns foreign consumers if they want to raise their shares in foreign markets. Consequently, exporting to countries with higher environmental standards can improve domestic environmental quality through firm’s environmental self-regulations. The result also indicates that large firms are more likely to adopt better environmental performance comparing with small firms. This finding is likely owing to economise of scale in environmental protection because firm’s likelihood of adopting better environmental performance increasing with its size. We find a similar kind of result with Nakamura et al, (2001) and Cole et al (2006) that export and large size are positive and significant. Although this result shows that firms with higher number of bank transaction are more likely to adopt environmental actions in Philippines.

 

5.2 Technology

 

To focus in the particular interest in technological impact for both countries, second Probit estimation results present the relation between firms environmental management, globalization and technology in the table 3. Technology variable is found positive and significant in all estimations for both countries. As we expected, technology is found positive relation with ISO 14001. It could possibly argue that environmental management are helping firms to adopt new technology or innovation activities. However, firms adopt new technology in order to lower the regulatory burdens. In addition, machine age is found significant in Philippine while R&D is found significant for Indonesia in second estimation. This result demonstrates that grater access of new technology is more likely to reduce industrial pollution in Philippine and Indonesia. It is commonly argued that new technology produce less CO2 because of clean energy use.#p#分頁標(biāo)題#e#

 

 

The table 3 shows the results from the final estimate equations (3a & 3b) where we identify the relation between firm’s environmental performance, globalization, technology and human capital variables. As we expected, Training and Supervisor are significant to determinant firm’s better environmental performance for both countries. This finding supports similar result with Cole et al, (2008) that Training is significant to reduce industrial pollution. If firms’ employees have any formal training, they have better knowledge to manufacturing products and might concern about environmental damage. Explanatory Variable “Supervisor percentage” is found positively significant that indicates if firms have higher percentage of supervisor, firms have better environmental performance in both countries. Secondary education is found positively related to firm’s environmental performance in Philippine while Board of directors is found significant in Indonesia. This finding suggests that secondary education completed workers are conscious about the environmental damage and board of directors have significant role to control industrial pollution.

 

Overall, the estimated coefficients of Large firm, Export, Technology, supervisor and training are positive and significant in all specific equations for both countries in order to determinant ISO14001 [7] . Small firm is negatively significant for Indonesia but not for Philippine. The result could not find significant to other globalization variable FDI. It is possibly argue from the table 2 that the average mean (0.14 in Indonesia and 0.38 in Philippines) which indicate Philippine and Indonesian firms have lower level FDI. Electronics and chemical industries are found positive and significant relation with better environmental performance because those industries are the main exporting industry in both countries.#p#分頁標(biāo)題#e#

 

6.0 Sensitivity Analysis

 

In order to check the robustness of our findings in the basic specification discussed above, we conducted a number of sensitivity analyses, which also might help us with the interpretation of our basic result. In tables 4 and 5 we undertake a range of sensitivity estimations to test robustness across our variables. In regression (4a and 4b) , we estimate the globalization and human capital variables and result presents Large firm, export, supervisors, training and board of directors are positive and significant while small firm is negative and significant in Indonesia. In equation (5a and 5b) from tables (4 and 5), examine the technology and human capital variable, we also find technology, supervisor and training are positive and significant. Furthermore, globalization and human capital equations from 6a and 6b show the explanatory variables large firm, export, supervisors and training are found significant and positively related with binary dependent variable ISO 14001.

 

To examine the relationship between large firm, export, technology, supervisor, training and firm’s ISO 14000, we drop all globalization variable expect export from equation 3a and 3b. From (7a&9b), tables (4 and 5) present large firm, export, technology and supervisor and training are significant. Following the same technique, from the equation 3a and 3b, we drop R&D and Machine age in 8a and 8b and drop all human capital variables expect training. We drop the sector dummies from equation 3a and 3b in order to identify whether key variables are still significant. In all of the cases, our key findings that large firm, export, technology, supervisor and training are positive and significant. These results leading us to conclude that the finding results from equation 3a and 3b are robust.

 

 

The specific purpose of this study is to examine the effect of globalization and firm level characteristics. In doing so, the study presents export oriented firms both in Philippine and Indonesia are found to be more likely adopt better environmental performance but we do not find any positive relation with FDI. International voluntary environmental initiatives such as the ISO 14001 standards have emerged as an important strategy for firms-self regulation. Globalization has increased the institutional and customers pressures that force firms to exceed local requirements. Export oriented Philippine and Indonesian firms, which play a vital role in the global supply chain, face constantly pressures from both domestic and global stakeholders could be the main reason for better environmental performance

 

Although, the results in this paper examine the internal factors which influence a firm to implement better environmental performance and doing so, large firm, supervisors, training and technology are found positive and significant in all specifications. Thus, small firm is negative and significant for Indonesia but not for Philippine. The results also provide new insights about the environmental behaviours of Philippines and Indonesia firms. We find that employees’ secondary education level plays a significant role for better environmental behaviours in Philippines. However, board of director pressures give assistance to adopt environmental actions in Indonesia. Furthermore, Firm’s workers formal training and supervisors are positively determinants for better performance. However, the important finding is that technology is highly significant for both countries to determinant the firm’s environmental performance. This result indicates that Technological changes over time and renewable energy in developing countries are important to reduce industrial pollution. In the future research we hope to be able to re-examine these issues using panel data, either for Argentina or for another country at a similar stage of development.#p#分頁標(biāo)題#e#

 

References

 

Antweiler, W., Copeland, B.R., Taylor, M.S., 2001. Is free trade good for the environment? American Economic Review 91 (4), 877-908

 

Anton W.R.Q., Deltas G., Khanna M., (2004). Incentives for environmental self-regulation and implications for environmental performance, Journal of Environment and Economic Management, 48, 632–654

 

Albornoz, F., Cole, M.A., Elliott, R.J.R. and Ercolani, M.G. 2009. In Search of Environmental Spillovers. The World Economy, 32, (1) 136-63.

 

Arora, S., Cason, T., 1996. Why do firms volunteer to exceed environmental regulations? Understanding participation in EPA's 33/50 program. Land Economics 72 (4), 413–432.

 

Aragon-Correa, J.A., Sharma, S., 2003. A contingent resource-based view of proactive environmental stragey. Academic of Management Reviews 28 (1), 71-88.

 

Arora, S., Gangopadhyay, S., 1995. Toward a theoretical model of voluntary over compliance. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization 28, 289–309.

 

Cole, M.A., Elliott, J.R.,2003. Determining the trade-environment composition effect: the role of capital, labour and environmental regulations. Journal of Environmental Economics and management 46 (3), 363-383.

 

Cole, M.A. 2004. Trade, the Pollution Haven Hypothesis and the Environmental Kuznets Curve: Examining the Linkages. Ecological Economics, 48 (1) 71-81.

 

Cole, M.A., Elliott, J.R, Strobl, E., 2008.The Environment Performance of Firms: The Role of Foreign Ownership, Training, and Experience. Ecological Economics 65, 538-546

 

Cole, M., Elliott, J.R., Shimamoto, K., 2005. Indestrial Characteristics, Environmental Regulation and Air Pollution: An Analysis of the UK Manufacturing Sector. Journal of Environmental Economics and management 50 (1), 121-143

 

Cole, M., Elliott, J.R., Wu, S., 2008. Industrial Activity and the Environment in China: An Industry-Level Analysis. China Economic Review, 19 (3) 393-408.

 

Cole, M.A., Elliott, R.J.R. and Shimamoto, K. (2006). Globalisation, Firm-Level Characteristics and Environmental Management : A Study of Japan. Ecological Economics, 59 ( 3) 312-23.

 

Cole, M.A. 2006. Does Trade Liberalisation Increase National Energy Use? Economics Letters. , 92, pp.108-12.

 

Drenzer,Daniel., 2000. Bottom Feeders. Foreign Policy, 122(1): 64-73

 

Dasgupta, S., Hettige, H., Wheeler, D. 2000. “What Improves Environmental Performance? Evidence from Mexican Industry. Journal of Environmental Economics and management

 

39(1), 39-66#p#分頁標(biāo)題#e#

 

Dasgupta, S., Laplante, B., Mamingi, N., 1997. Pollution and Capital Markets in Developing Countries. World Bank, Washington, DC.”

 

Dasgupta, S., Laplante, B., Mamingi, N., Wang, H., 1999. “Inspections, Pollution Prices and Environmental Performance: Evidence from China. World Bank, Washington, DC.”

 

Frerrantino, M., 1997. I nternational Trade, Environmental Quality and Public Policy. World Economy, 20 (1), 43-72

 

Gangadharan, L., 2001. Compliance in environmental markets. Applied Economics Letters 8, 641

 

Gangadharan, L., 2006. Environmental compliance by firms in the manufacturing sector in Mexico. Ecological Economics 9, 477-486

 

Henriques I., Sadorsky P., 1996. The Determinants of an Environmentally Responsive Firm: An Empirical Approach. Journal of Environmental Economics and management 30, 381-395

 

Huq, M. and Wheeler, D. 1993. Pollution Reduction Without Formal Regulation: Evidence from Bangladesh. Working Paper no. 1993-39, Washington: World Bank, Environment Department.

 

Hartman, Raymond S., Mainul Huq & David Wheeler. 1997. Why Paper Mills Clean Up:Determinants of Pollution Abatement in four Asian Countries. Policy Research Working Paper 1710, World Bank, Washington, D.C.

 

Hettige, H., Huq, M., Pargal, S., Wheeler, D., 1996. “Determinants of pollution abatement in developing countries: evidence from south and southeast Asia.” World development 24 (12), 191–1904.

 

Jahiel, Abigail., March 1997. “The Contradictory Impact of Reform on Environmental Protection in China, China review, 22, 81-103.”

 

Kathuria, V., 2007.Informal regulation of pollution in a developing country:Evidence from India. Ecological Economics 63, 403-417.

 

Kollman K., Prakash A., 2002. EMS-based environmental regimes as club goods: examining variations in firm-level adoption of ISO 14001 and EMAS in UK, US and Germany. Political Science 35, 43–67

 

Khanna M., Damon L.A., 1999.EPA’s Voluntary 33/50 Program: impact on toxic releases and economic performance of firms. 37 1–25.

 

Laplante, B., Lanoie, P., 1994. “Market response to environmental incidents in Canada.” Southern Economic Journal, 60, 657–672.

 

Leonard, H. Jeffrey. 1988. Pollution and the Struggle for a World Product: MultinationalCorporations, Environment, and the Struggle for International Comparative Advantage.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

 

Leonard, H. Jeffrey & Christopher C. Duerkson. 1980. Environmental Regulations and theLocation of Industry: An International Perspective. Columbia Journal of World Business, 15(2):54-68.#p#分頁標(biāo)題#e#

 

M. Szymanski, P. Tiwari, (2004) “ISO 14001 and the reduction of toxic emissions”, Political Reform 7 (1) 31–42.

 

Mamingi, N., Dasgupta, S., Laplante, B., Hong, J.H., 2006. Firm’s Environmental Performance: Does news matter? World Bank Policy Research Working Paper 3888.

 

Mani, M., Wheeler, D., 1998. In search of pollution havens? Dirty industry in the world economy, 1960–1995. Journal of Environment and Development 7 (3), 215– 247.

 

Motta R. S (2006) “Analyzing the environmental performance of the Brazilian industrial sector” Ecological Economics, 57, 269– 281

 

Nakamura M., Takahashi T., Vertinsky I.,(2001) “Why Japanese firms choose to certify: a study of managerial responses to environmental issues”, Journal of Environment and Economic Management. 42 (2001) 23–52

 

Porter, M., (1991)., “Americas’s GreenStrategy,” Scientific America, p 168.

 

Peart R., (2001), External factors influencing the environmental performance of South African firms, South African Journal of Science 97.s

 

Prakash, A., “Greening the Firm: The politics of Corporate Environmentalism.”

 

Pargal, S., Wheeler, D., 1996. “Informal regulation of industrial pollution in developing countries: evidence from Indonesia.” Journal of Political Economy 104 (6), 1314–1327.

 

Pargal, S., Hettige, H., Singh, M., Wheeler, D., 1997a. “Formal and informal regulation of industrial pollution: comparative evidence from Indonesia and the United States.” World Bank Economic Review., 11 (3), 433–450.

 

Pargal, S., Muthukumara, M., Huq, M., 1997b. “Inspections and emissions in India: puzzling survey evidence on industrial water pollution.” World Bank, Washington, DC.

 

Sinclair-Desgagné, B. and Gabel, H.L. (1997), Environmental Auditing in Management Systems and Public Policy, Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Vol. 33, 3, Pages 331-346.

 

Tobbey,J., 1990. The impact of domestic environmental policies on the pattern of world trade: an empirical test. Kyklos, 43(2): 191-209

 

Talukder, D., Meisner, C., 2001. Does the private sector help or hurt the environment? Evidence from Carbon dioxide pollution in developing countries. World Development 29 (5) 827-840.

 

Vidovic, Martina., Khanna, N., September 2004. “Can voluntary pollution prevention programs fulfill their promises? Further evidence from the EPA’s 33/50 Program.” Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 53(2007) 180-195.#p#分頁標(biāo)題#e#

 

Walter, I., 1982. Environmentally induced industrial relocation to developing countries. In:Rubin, S. (Ed.), Environment and Trade Allanheld, Osmun and Co., New Jersey

 

Wisner, S., Epstein, J., 2005. “Push” and “Pull” Impacts of NAFTA on Environmental Responsiveness and Performance in Mexican Industry.Management International Review; 45 (3) 327-347.