Abstract

We examine two alternative strategies that an environmental group can embark when interacting with a firm. The first one which is already discussed in the literature is when the group campaigns against the firm. The second one which has not been modelled in the literature is when the group collaborates with the firm (green alliance) to reduce the cost of the cleaner technology. We look at the case of both options being available for the group in a setting with an environmental tax. One of the main results of the paper argues that for higher taxation the conflict scenario is more likely to happen, implying that collaboration and a more stringent environmental policy are substitutes. This identifies a previously unexamined and possibly adverse effect of public policy on environmental quality because it weakens the impact of the pollution tax on emission intensity. We also characterise the optimal tax that maximises social welfare and find that under pure conflict –when conflict is the only option for the environmentalists– optimal tax is higher than when the group can choose to act against or join forces with the firm, indicating that a less stringent environmental policy is needed in the latter scenario.

Highlights

  • Examples of environmental organisations clashing with businesses are surely not scarce

  • We find that the optimal tax rate in the case where conflict is the only option for the environmentalists is higher compared to the case where taxation affects the environmental group (EG)’s choice between conflict and collaboration

  • This section compares the optimal tax in the case where the EG can only go into conflict with the monopolist with the case where the EG has a choice of conflict or collaboration

Read more

Summary

Introduction

Examples of environmental organisations clashing with businesses are surely not scarce. The characterisation of the optimal tax in this setting is new to the literature, despite an important number of industries where this sort of policy is widely used (e.g., Tietenberg 2013) and, at the same time, examples where an EG and a polluting firm collaborate/go into conflict. The government sets the environmental tax and aims to maximise social welfare which is defined as the sum of consumer and producer surplus minus the negative externality from pollution, in the presence of uncertainty about the possibility of conflict and collaboration. The optimised level of social welfare is higher in the latter case These results point to the extent of substitutability between taxation and collaboration: with a chance for collaboration there is room to set a smaller tax since emissions are lower due to the transfer of know-how from the EG to the polluting firm.

The Model
The Monopolist’s Decision
The EG’s Decision
Social Welfare
Optimal Taxation
Taxation
Numerical Exercise
Conclusion
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call