1932

Abstract

Traditionally, competition law and practice serve to preserve competition, with a focus on the maximization of consumer welfare. This has been criticized as conflicting with society's overarching goal of achieving greater (environmental) sustainability. Consequently, various jurisdictions have recently reformed their laws and guidance allowing them to account for sustainability benefits in the assessment of cooperation between competitors, with potentially considerable implications for how firms can jointly develop and introduce more sustainable technologies and products. This has opened a new research frontier in the long-standing tradition of marrying the theory of industrial organization with the field of environmental and resource economics. The consideration of sustainability benefits in competition analysis also requires both the transfer and adaptation of measurement techniques. We summarize recent developments and sketch potential research opportunities.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-resource-092622-010400
2023-10-05
2024-06-14
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/resource/15/1/annurev-resource-092622-010400.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-resource-092622-010400&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

Literature Cited

  1. ACM (Aut. Consum. Markt) 2021. Guidelines: sustainability agreements. Opportunities within competition law Draft Rep. Aut. Consum. Markt Den Haag, Neth.: https://www.acm.nl/sites/default/files/documents/2020-07/sustainability-agreements%5B1%5D.pdf
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Ahmed R, Segerson K. 2011. Collective voluntary agreements to eliminate polluting products. Resour. Energy Econ. 33:3572–88
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Alcott H, Rogers T. 2014. The short-run and long-run effects of behavioral interventions: experimental evidence from energy conservation. Am. Econ. Rev. 104:103003–37
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Ambec S, De Donder P. 2022. Environmental policy with green consumerism. J. Environ. Econ. Manag. 111:2102584
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Ambec S, Lanoie P. 2008. Does it pay to be green? A systematic overview. Acad. Manag. Perspect. 22:445–62
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Athey S, Schmutzler A. 2001. Investment and market dominance. Rand J. Econ. 32:11–26
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Atkinson G, Braathen NA, Groom B, Mourato S. 2018. Cost-Benefit Analysis and the Environment: Further Developments and Policy Use Paris: OECD Publ.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Atkinson G, Mourato S. 2015. Cost-benefit analysis and the environment OECD Environ. Work. Pap. 97 OECD Paris: https://www.doi.org/10.1787/5jrp6w76tstg-en
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Bansal P, Roth K. 2000. Why companies go green: a model of ecological responsiveness. Acad. Manag. J. 43:4717–36
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Bernheim BD, Rangel A. 2008. Choice-theoretic foundations for behavioural welfare economics. The Foundations of Positive and Normative Economics: A Hand Book, ed. A Caplin, A Schotter 155–92. Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Besley T, Ghatak M. 2007. Retailing public goods: the economics of corporate social responsibility. J. Public Econ 91:91645–63
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Boyle KJ, Desvousges WH, Johnson FR, Dunford RW, Hudson SP. 1994. An investigation of part-whole biases in contingent-valuation studies. J Environ. Econ. Manag. 27:164–83
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Broccardo E, Hart O, Zingales L. 2022. Exit versus voice. J. Political Econ. 130:123101–45
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Buchanan J. 1969. External diseconomies, corrective taxes, and market structure. Am. Econ. Rev. 59:1174–77
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Calveras A, Juan-José G, Llobet G. 2007. Regulation, corporate social responsibility and activism. J. Econ. Manag. Strategy 16:3719–40
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Carraro C, Katsoulacos Y, Xepapadeas A, eds. 2010. Environmental Policy and Market Structure Dordrecht, Neth: Kluwer
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Chiou JR, Hu JL. 2001. Environmental research joint ventures under emission taxes. Environ. Resour. Econ. 20:2129–46
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Conrad K. 2005. Price competition and product differentiation when consumers care for the environment. Environ. Resour. Econ. 31:11–19
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Constantatos C, Pargianas C, Sartzetakis ES. 2020. Green consumers and environmental policy. J. Public Econ. Theory 23:1105–40
    [Google Scholar]
  20. D'Aspremont C, Jacquemin A. 1988. Cooperative and noncooperative R&D in duopoly with spillovers. Am. Econ. Rev. 78:51133–37
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Desvousges W, Mathews K, Train K. 2012. Adequate responsiveness to scope in contingent valuation. Ecol. Econ. 84:121–28
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Dewatripont M, Tirole J. 2022. Markets and morals Paper presented at the ASSA Virtual Annual Meeting Jan. 7–9
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Eriksson C. 2004. Can green consumerism replace environmental regulation? A differentiated-products example. Resour. Energy Econ. 26:3281–93
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Eur. Comm. 2022. Guidelines on the Applicability of Article 101 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union to Horizontal Cooperation Agreements. Annex Off. J. Eur. Union C 11/1 Brussels.:
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Eur. Court Justice 2011. Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 17 November 2011. European Commission v Italian Republic. Failure of a member state to fulfil obligations – Judgment of the Court establishing a failure to fulfil obligations – Failure to comply with the judgment – Article 228 EC – Financial penalties. Case C-496/09 Eur. Court Rep 2011-00000. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/HR/TXT/?uri=CELEX:62009CJ0496
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Eur. Union 2008. Consolidated version of the Treaty on European Union Off. J. Eur. Union C115/13 Brussels: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:C:2008:115:0013:0045:en:PDF
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Farrell J, Saloner G. 1985. Standardization, compatibility, and innovation. RAND J. Econ. 16:170–83
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Fleckinger P, Glachant M. 2011. Negotiating a voluntary agreement when firms self-regulate. J. Environ. Econ. Manag. 62:141–52
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Grilo I, Shy O, Thisse JF. 2001. Price competition when consumer behavior is characterized by conformity or vanity. J. Public Econ. 80:3385–408
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Hart O, Zingales L. 2017. Companies should maximize shareholder welfare not market value. J. Law Finance Account. 2:2247–75
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Holmes S. 2020. Climate change, sustainability, and competition law. J. Antitrust Enforc. 8:2354–405
    [Google Scholar]
  32. Inderst R, Rhiel F, Thomas S. 2021a. Sustainability agreements and social norms Work. Pap. Goethe Univ. Frankfurt, Ger.: http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3887314
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Inderst R, Sartzetakis ES, Xepapadeas A. 2021b. Technical report on sustainability and competition Rep. HCC/ACM Athens/Den Haag: https://www.acm.nl/sites/default/files/documents/technical-report-sustainability-and-competition_0.pdf
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Inderst R, Sartzetakis ES, Xepapadeas A. 2022. Firm competition and cooperation with norm-based preferences for sustainability CEPR Press Discuss. Pap. 16945 Cent. Econ. Policy Res. Brussels:
    [Google Scholar]
  35. Inderst R, Thomas S. 2021. Reflective willingness to pay: preferences for sustainable consumption in a consumer welfare analysis. J. Compet. Law Econ. 17:4848–76
    [Google Scholar]
  36. Inderst R, Thomas S. 2022a. Prospective welfare analysis—extending willingness-to-pay assessment to embrace sustainability. J. Compet. Law Econ. 18:3551–83
    [Google Scholar]
  37. Inderst R, Thomas S. 2022b. The scope and limitations of incorporating externalities in competition analysis within a consumer welfare approach. World. Compet. 45:3351–86
    [Google Scholar]
  38. Jakob M, Kübler D, Steckel J C, Van Veldhuizen R. 2017. Clean up your own mess: an experimental study of moral responsibility and efficiency. J. Public Econ. 155:138–46
    [Google Scholar]
  39. Katz M, Shapiro C. 1986. Technology adoption in the presence of network externalities. J. Political Econ. 94:4822–41
    [Google Scholar]
  40. Kingston S. 2011. Greening EU Competition Law and Policy Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  41. Kitzmueller M, Shimshack J. 2012. Economic perspectives on corporate social responsibility. J. Econ. Lit. 50:151–84
    [Google Scholar]
  42. Lambertini L. 2017. Green innovation and market power. Annu. Rev. Resour. Econ. 9:231–52
    [Google Scholar]
  43. Landier A, Lovo S. 2020. ESG investing: How to optimize impact? Res. Pap. FIN-2020-1363, HEC Paris:
    [Google Scholar]
  44. Mariel P, Sandonís J. 2004. Technology and antitrust policies in a polluting industry. Prague Econ. Pap. 2004:167–81
    [Google Scholar]
  45. Menezes FM, Pereira J. 2017. Emissions abatement R&D: dynamic competition in supply schedules. J. Public Econ. Theory 19:4841–59
    [Google Scholar]
  46. Mulder M, Zomer S. 2017. Dutch consumers' willingness to pay for broiler welfare. J. Appl. Anim. Welf. Sci. 20:2137–54
    [Google Scholar]
  47. Nowag J. 2016. Environmental Integration in Competition and Free-Movement Law Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  48. Nyborg K, Howarth RB, Brekke KA. 2006. Green consumers and public policy: on socially contingent moral motivation. Resour. Energy Econ. 28:4351–66
    [Google Scholar]
  49. OECD (Organ. Econ. Co-op. Dev.) 2010. Horizontal agreements in the environmental context Policy Roundtable DAF/COMP201039 OECD Paris: http://www.oecd.org/daf/competition/49139867.pdf
    [Google Scholar]
  50. OECD (Organ. Econ. Co-op. Dev.) 2020. Sustainability and competition. Compet. Comm. Discuss. Pap. OECD Paris: http://www.oecd.org/daf/competition/sustainability-and-competition-2020.pdf
    [Google Scholar]
  51. Oehmke M, Opp MM. 2022. A theory of socially responsible investment Swed. House Finance Res. Pap. 22-2. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3467644
    [Google Scholar]
  52. Pearce D, Atkinson G, Mourato S. 2006. Cost-Benefit Analysis and the Environment: Recent Developments Paris: OECD Publ.
    [Google Scholar]
  53. Petrakis E, Poyago-Theotoky J. 2002. R&D subsidies versus R&D cooperation in a duopoly with spillovers and pollution. Aust. Econ. Pap. 41:137–52
    [Google Scholar]
  54. Porter ME, Kramer MR. 2006. Strategy and society: the link between competitive advantage and corporate social responsibility-response. Harv. Bus. Rev. 84:1278–92
    [Google Scholar]
  55. Poyago-Theotoky JA. 2007. The organization of R&D and environmental policy. J. Econ. Behav. Organ. 62:163–75
    [Google Scholar]
  56. Schultz PA. 2002. Knowledge, information, and household recycling: examining the knowledge-deficit model of behavior change. New Tools for Environmental Protection: Education, Information, and Voluntary Measures T Dietz, PC Stern 67–82. Washington, DC: Natl. Acad. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  57. Segerson K. 2013. Voluntary approaches to environmental protection and resource management. Annu. Rev. Resour. Econ. 5:161–80
    [Google Scholar]
  58. Servaes H, Tamayo A. 2013. The impact of corporate social responsibility on firm value: the role of customer awareness. Manag. Sci. 59:51045–61
    [Google Scholar]
  59. Simon DH, Prince J. 2016. The effect of competition on toxic pollution releases. J. Environ. Econ. Manag. 79:40–54
    [Google Scholar]
  60. Stern N, Stiglitz J, Taylor C. 2022. The economics of immense risk, urgent action and radical change: towards new approaches to the economics of climate change. J. Econ. Methodol. 29:3181–216
    [Google Scholar]
  61. Sugden R. 1984. Reciprocity: the supply of public goods through voluntary contributions. Econ. J. 94:376772–87
    [Google Scholar]
  62. Suzumura K. 1992. Cooperative and non-cooperative R&D in an oligopoly with spillovers. . Am. Econ. Rev. 82:51307–20
    [Google Scholar]
  63. Tirole J. 2012. Some political economy of global warming. Econ. Energy Environ. Policy 1:1121–32
    [Google Scholar]
  64. United States v. American Tobacco Co., 221 S. Ct 1911.)
  65. Van Moer G. 2022. Horizontal agreements about the use of a natural resource MPRA Pap. 113878. https://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/id/eprint/113878
    [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-resource-092622-010400
Loading
  • Article Type: Review Article
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error