Abstract:
Twenty years ago, Harvard Business School economist and strategy professor Michael Porter
stood conventional wisdom about the impact of environmental regulation on business on its head by
declaring that well-designed regulation could actually enhance competitiveness. The traditional view of
environmental regulation held by virtually all economists until that time was that requiring firms to
reduce an externality like pollution necessarily restricted their options and thus by definition reduced their
profits. After all, if profitable opportunities existed to reduce pollution, profit-maximizing firms would
already be taking advantage of those opportunities. Over the past 20 years, much has been written about
what has since become known simply as the Porter Hypothesis (PH). Yet even today, we find conflicting
evidence and alternative theories that might explain the PH, and oftentimes a misunderstanding of what
the PH does and does not say. This paper provides an overview of the key theoretical and empirical
insights into the PH to date, draws policy implications from these insights, and sketches out major
research themes going forward.
Author:
Stefan Ambec, Mark A. Cohen, Stewart Elgie, and Paul Lanoie