Grantee Research Project Results
2001 Progress Report: Shaping Corporate Environmental Behavior and Performance: The Impact of Enforcement and Non-Enforcement Tools
EPA Grant Number: R828828Title: Shaping Corporate Environmental Behavior and Performance: The Impact of Enforcement and Non-Enforcement Tools
Investigators: Earnhart, Dietrich H. , Haider-Markel, Donald , Glicksman, Robert , Ebihara, Tatsuji
Institution: University of Kansas
EPA Project Officer: Hahn, Intaek
Project Period: March 12, 2001 through March 11, 2004 (Extended to December 11, 2005)
Project Period Covered by this Report: March 12, 2001 through March 11, 2002
Project Amount: $341,234
RFA: Corporate Environmental Performance and the Effectiveness of Government Interventions (2000) RFA Text | Recipients Lists
Research Category: Environmental Justice
Objective:
The overall objective of this research project is to integrate the fields of economics, political science, law, and engineering management to determine the factors that shape corporate environmental behavior and performance (CEBP) at individual facilities in the industrial sector of chemical and allied products. Our primary objective is to determine and isolate the effects of various government interventions including: inspections, federal fines, federal injunctive relief, supplemental environmental projects (SEPs), and state fines. We will measure environmental behavior by the extent of treatment, auditing, and the environmental management system (EMS). We will measure environmental performance by wastewater discharges and the compliance rate with effluent limits. Specific objectives are to identify the: (1) differential effects of government interventions (e.g., federal fines versus state fines) and the effects of general deterrence and enforcement approach; (2) interactions between government interventions and facility characteristics (especially U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) status of "major" or "minor" discharger); and (3) influences of community pressure and firm financial status. We also will empirically test a theory of specific deterrence.
Progress Summary:
To achieve these objectives, we have gathered data on environmental performance and government interventions from EPA and state agency databases. We currently are in the process of gathering information on environmental behavior from an original survey of all 512 "major" chemical facilities, and a random sample of 1,000 "minor" facilities.
In particular, we have: (1) obtained data on federal and state inspections, EPA administrative fines, federal judicial fines, and federal injunctive relief sanctions and SEPs; (2) obtained preliminary data on state penalties from two of the five selected states; (3) obtained and summarized data on monthly wastewater discharges and permitted effluent limits for biological oxygen demand (BOD) and total suspended solids (TSS); (4) designed and incorporated, into our survey, questions on environmental behavior, such as auditing frequency and scope; (5) obtained sector-specific data on various measures of general deterrence, such as inspection rates; (6) designed and incorporated, into our survey, questions to distinguish the overall enforcement approach; (7) designed and incorporated, into our survey, hypothetical scenarios designed to generate stated behavior data on responses to the imposition of penalties that vary in size and likelihood; (8) obtained, from public sources, data on some facility characteristics, such as the 4-digit Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) code and the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) facility classification as a "major" or "minor" wastewater discharger; (9) designed and incorporated into our survey are questions on other facility characteristics, such as employment level and environmental full-time equivalent (FTE) staff; (10) designed and incorporated into our survey are questions on various EMS factors, such as conformance to standard compliance audit protocols; (11) obtained information on community characteristics using zip code-level Census data and county-level Commerce Department Regional Economic Information Service (REIS) data; and (12) designed and incorporated into our survey questions that probe managerial perspectives on community pressure and facilities' environmental standing in the local community.
Future Activities:
For the subsequent period of July 1, 2002 to May 15, 2003 we plan to: (1) finish implementation of the survey; (2) code, clean, and scrutinize the survey responses; (3) gather the remaining data on state penalties; (4) gather data on state water budgets and the number of manufacturing facilities per state; (5) gather data on ambient surface water quality; (6) gather and scrutinize financial data; (7) merge all data noted above, plus data on community characteristics, with currently merged data on discharges, effluent limits, inspections, and federal penalties; and (8) econometrically analyze these data to estimate the relationships between CEBP and government interventions, while controlling for general deterrence, enforcement approach, and community pressure within a simultaneous equations system.
Journal Articles:
No journal articles submitted with this report: View all 15 publications for this projectSupplemental Keywords:
water, discharge, survey, socioeconomic, enforcement, monitoring, engineering, law, chemical products, allied products, SIC Code 28, Heckman two-stage estimation., RFA, Economic, Social, & Behavioral Science Research Program, Scientific Discipline, Sustainable Industry/Business, Economics, Corporate Performance, Economics and Business, decision-making, Social Science, Economics & Decision Making, Environmental Law, environmental performance, SEPs, environmental management systems (EMS), policy analysis, deterrence, compliance assistance, enforcement strategy, policy making, government intervention, incentives, decision making, environmental decision making, corporate compliance, environmental compliance determinants, socioeconomics, economic incentives, enforcement, environmental policy, air & water pollution regulations, Laws, environmental behavior, regulations, enforcement impact, EMS, legal and policy choices, public policy, regulatory impact, corporate environmental behaviorProgress and Final Reports:
Original AbstractThe perspectives, information and conclusions conveyed in research project abstracts, progress reports, final reports, journal abstracts and journal publications convey the viewpoints of the principal investigator and may not represent the views and policies of ORD and EPA. Conclusions drawn by the principal investigators have not been reviewed by the Agency.