As an important market-based environmental policy, carbon emissions trading has played an increasingly important role in promoting energy conservation, emission reduction, and green innovation. The Chinese government started to implement a Carbon Emission Trade scheme in 2013 successively. This study uses a multi-period difference in difference to investigate the impact of Carbon Emission Trade on green innovation in panel data of listed companies from 2008 to 2020. The results show that: (1) Carbon Emission Trade significantly improves green innovation by 0.1916%. The robust test verifies the results. (2) The impact of Carbon Emission Trade on green innovation is heterogeneous at regional, industrial, and firm levels. From the regional level, Carbon Emission Trade has a stronger effect on regions with high marketization and low emissions. From the industry level, the policy effects are more pronounced in technology-intensive industries and the power industry, and negative policy effects are generated in Chemical industry, steel, and paper industries. From the enterprise level, Carbon Emission Trade shows better policy effects in state-owned enterprises, large enterprises. (3) Carbon Emission Trade enhances green innovation by reducing corporate financing constraints, improving corporate human capital, and strengthening government. (4) The enhancement of green innovation by Carbon Emission Trade balances the benefits. Increasing carbon price, market size and activity inhibit the increase of Carbon Emission Trade on green innovation. Based on the findings, the paper provides a new reference for the establishment of a carbon market.
RaymondL. Policy perspective:building political support for carbon pricing—lessons from cap-and-trade policies. Energy Policy2019; 134: 110986.
2.
ShanYHuangQGuanD,et al.China CO2 emission accounts 2016–2017. Sci Data2020; 7: –9.
3.
ZhangHSunXBiC,et al.Can sustainable development policy reduce carbon emissions? Empirical evidence from resource-based cities in China. Sci Total Environ2022a; 156341. DOI:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2022.156341
4.
GuoJGuFLiuY,et al.Assessing the impact of ETS trading profit on emission abatements based on firm-level transactions. Nat. Commun2020; 11. DOI:10.1038/s41467-020-15996-1
5.
WangQWangXLiR. Does urbanization redefine the environmental Kuznets curve? An empirical analysis of 134 Countries.
6.
StephensonJRSovacoolBKInderbergTHJ. Energy cultures and national decarbonisation pathways. Renew Sustain Energy Rev2021; 137: 110592.
7.
AntalaMJuszczakRvan der TolC,et al.Impact of climate change-induced alterations in peatland vegetation phenology and composition on carbon balance. Sci Total Environ2022; 827: 154294.
WenHXChenZRNiePY. Environmental and economic performance of China’s ETS pilots: new evidence from an expanded synthetic control method. Energy Reports2021; 7: 2999–3010.
10.
WangQZhangFLiR. Revisiting the environmental kuznets curve hypothesis in 208 counties: the roles of trade openness, human capital, renewable energy and natural resource rent. Environ Res2023b; 216: 114637.
11.
BahnOBarretoLKypreosS. Modelling and assessing inter-regional trade of CO2 emission reduction units. Environ Model Assess2001; 6: 173–182.
12.
MiZWeiYMWangB, , et al.Socioeconomic impact assessment of China’s CO2 emissions peak prior to 2030. J Clean Prod2017; 142: 2227–2236.
13.
StuckiTWoerterMArvanitisS,et al.How different policy instruments affect green product innovation: a differentiated perspective. Energy Policy2018; 114: 245–261.
14.
PorterMEVan der LindeC. Toward a new conception of the environment-competitiveness relationship. J Econ Perspect1995; 9: 97–118.
15.
WangQYangTLiR. Does income inequality reshape the environmental Kuznets curve (EKC) hypothesis? A nonlinear panel data analysis. Environ. Res2023a; 216: 114575.
16.
LiRWangQLiuY,et al.Per-capita carbon emissions in 147 countries: The effect of economic, energy, social, and trade structural changes. Sustain. Prod. Consum2021; 27.
17.
FuCHuangYZhengY,et al.The influence and acting pattern of China’s national carbon emission trading scheme on regional ecologicalization efficiency of industry. Sci. Rep2022; 12: 1–11.
18.
CretiAJouvetPAMignonV. Carbon price drivers: phase I versus phase II equilibrium?Energy Econ2012; 34: 327–334.
19.
NaegeleHZaklanA. Does the EU ETS cause carbon leakage in European manufacturing?J. Environ. Econ. Manage2019; 93: 125–147.
20.
OesingmannK. The effect of the European emissions trading system (EU ETS) on aviation demand: an empirical comparison with the impact of ticket taxes. Energy Policy2022; 160: 112657.
21.
DingD. The impacts of carbon pricing on the electricity market in Japan. Humanit. Soc. Sci. Commun2022; 9: –8.
22.
VenmansF. A literature-based multi-criteria evaluation of the EU ETS. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev2012; 16: 5493–5510.
23.
BassottiG. Did the European Union Light a Beacon of Hope in North Africa? Assessing the Effectiveness of EU Democracy Promotion in Tunisia. EU Diplomacy Paper 6/2017. 2017.
24.
LuHMaXHuangK,et al.Carbon trading volume and price forecasting in China using multiple machine learning models. J. Clean. Prod2020; 249: 119386.
25.
YaoSYuXYanS,et al.Heterogeneous emission trading schemes and green innovation. Energy Policy2021; 155: 112367.
26.
LinSWangBWuW,et al.The potential influence of the carbon market on clean technology innovation in China. Clim. Policy2018; 18: 71–89.
27.
SongYLiuTYeB,et al.Improving the liquidity of China’s carbon market: insight from the effect of carbon price transmission under the policy release. J. Clean. Prod2019; 239: 118049.
28.
ShiBLiNGaoQ,et al.Market incentives, carbon quota allocation and carbon emission reduction : evidence from China’s carbon trading pilot policy. J. Environ. Manage2022; 319: 115650.
29.
ZhangYChenNWangS,et al.Will carbon trading reduce spatial inequality ? A spatial analysis of 200 cities in China. J. Environ. Manage2023; 325: 116402.
30.
KunapatarawongRMartínez-RosE. Towards green growth: how does green innovation affect employment?Res. Policy2016; 45: 1218–1232.
31.
XuLFanMYangL,et al.Heterogeneous green innovations and carbon emission performance: Evidence at China’s city level. Energy Econ2021; 99. doi:10.1016/j.eneco.2021.105269
32.
ZhangJSunXLiH, , et al.Investigating the Role of Emissions Trading Policy to Reduce Emissions and Improve the Efficiency of Industrial Green Innovation. J Manag Sci Eng2021; 6: 377–392.
33.
BelGJosephS. Policy stringency under the European union emission trading system and its impact on technological change in the energy sector. Energy Pol2018; 117: 434–444.
34.
DuKLiPYanZ. Do green technology innovations contribute to carbon dioxide emission reduction? Empirical evidence from patent data. Technol Forecast Soc Change2019; 146: 297–303.
FanFLianHLiuX,et al.Can environmental regulation promote urban green innovation efficiency? An empirical study based on Chinese cities. J Clean Prod2021; 287: 125060.
NewberyDM. Towards a green energy economy? The EU energy union’s transition to a low-carbon zero subsidy electricity system – lessons from the UK’s electricity market reform. Appl Energy2016; 179: 1321–1330.
39.
KhattakSIAhmadMHaqZu,et al.On the goals of sustainable production and the conditions of environmental sustainability: does cyclical innovation in green and sustainable technologies determine carbon dioxide emissions in G-7 economies. Sustain Prod Consum2022; 29: 406–420.
40.
AftabSAhmedAChandioAA,et al.Modeling the nexus between carbon emissions, energy consumption, and economic progress in Pakistan: evidence from cointegration and causality analysis. Energy Rep2021; 7: 4642–4658.
41.
ShanSGençSYKamranHW,et al.Role of green technology innovation and renewable energy in carbon neutrality: a sustainable investigation from Turkey. J Environ Manage2021; 294: 113004.
42.
HuGWangXWangY. Can the green credit policy stimulate green innovation in heavily polluting enterprises? Evidence from a quasi-natural experiment in China. Energy Econ2021; 98: 105134.
43.
PengHShenNYingH,et al.Can environmental regulation directly promote green innovation behavior?— based on situation of industrial agglomeration. J Clean rod2021; 314: 128044.
44.
DuGYuMSunC,et al.Green innovation effect of emission trading policy on pilot areas and neighboring areas: an analysis based on the spatial econometric model. Energy Policy2021; 156: 112431.
45.
HadlockCJPierceJR. New evidence on measuring financial constraints: Moving beyond the KZ Index. Rev Financ Stud2010; 23: 1909–1940.
46.
ChenXYiNZhangL,et al.Does institutional pressure foster corporate green innovation? Evidence from China’s top 100 companies. J Clean Prod2018a; 188: 304–311.
47.
ChenHGuoWFengX, , et al.The impact of low-carbon city pilot policy on the total factor productivity of listed enterprises in China. Resour Conserv Recycl2021a; 169: 105457.
48.
YangLLiFZhangX. Chinese Companies’ awareness and perceptions of the emissions trading scheme (ETS): evidence from a national survey in China. Energy Policy2016; 98: 254–265.
49.
JingZWangJ. Sustainable development evaluation of the society–economy–environment in a resource-based city of China: a complex network approach. J. Clean. Prod2020; 263: 121510.
50.
ShenJTangPZengH. Does China’s carbon emission trading reduce carbon emissions? Evidence from listed firms. Energy Sustain. Dev2020; 59: 120–129.
51.
XieWYanTXiaS,et al.Innovation or Introduction? The Impact of Technological Progress Sources on Industrial Green Transformation of Resource-Based Cities in China. Front Energy Res2020; 8. DOI:10.3389/fenrg.2020.598141
52.
GuGZhengHTongL,et al.Does carbon financial market as an environmental regulation policy tool promote regional energy conservation and emission reduction? Empirical evidence from China. Energy Policy2022; 163: 112826.
53.
ChengCRenXDongK,et al.How does technological innovation mitigate CO2 emissions in OECD countries? Heterogeneous analysis using panel quantile regression. J. Environ Manage2021; 280: 111818.
