2015-24
Does corporate environmental performance change
through environmental policies between pre and post 2011?
Evidence from firm-level data in Germany and Japan
Lara Makowski Qi Wu
Michiyuki Yagi Katsuhiko Kokubu

Does corporate environmental performance change through environmental
policies between pre and post 2011? Evidence from firm-level data in
Germany and Japan
Lara Makowski *, Qi Wu*, Michiyuki Yagi*, Katsuhiko Kokubu*
マコウスキ ララ・呉綺・八木迪幸・國部克彦

Abstract
After the nuclear disaster, in the aftermath of the Great East Japan Earthquake in 2011, theJapanese government shut down all nuclear power plants in Japan. The German government decided topermanently phase out nuclear power. Japan was, and still is, directly affected by the nuclear disaster andGermany is considered the most sensitive country to nuclear energy after the nuclear disaster. This study
aims to empirically examine whether there were changes in corporate environmental performance throughcompanies’ implementations of environmental policies from before 2011 to after 2011 in Germany andJapan in the non-financial and non-energy. The dependent variable (as corporate environmental
performance) is defined as a firm’s sales divided by corporate direct greenhouse gas emissions (Scope 1) inthe logarithm form. The independent variables are nine corporate policies, which all are dummy variables.
This study uses the global firm dataset from the Bloomberg professional service where the number ofobservation is 832 in over a seven-year period (2006-2012). In the regression result, we find that whenroughly examining pre and post 2011, using a dummy variable, there is significant change regarding theJapan and both sample. We then find that in eight out of the nine cases there is no effect of implementing
the environmental policies on corporate efficiency.

Key words: Environmental efficiency; Pre and post disaster; Germany and Japanese companies;
environmental, social, and governance policies; greenhouse gas emissions
JEL classification: F21, O13, Q54*

Graduate School of Business Administration, Kobe University
Address: 2-1, Rokkodai-cho, Nada-ku, Kobe-city, 657-8501, Japan
Email: lara.makowski@cbs-mail.de11. Introduction
In March 2011, the biggest earthquake ever recorded in Japan, now known as the Great East Japan
Earthquake, hit the Japanese island. The quake caused a tsunami that in turn damaged the Fukushima
nuclear power plant, leading to the uncontrolled release of radioactivity (Carpenter, 2012). After the
nuclear disaster, the Japanese government shut down all nuclear power plants in Japan. The country was,and continues to be, directly affected by the nuclear disaster. Meanwhile, even though Germany is on theother side of the world from Japan, the German government decided to permanently phase out nuclear
power. Therefore, Germany is considered the most sensitive country to nuclear energy after the nuclear
disaster. Focusing on the two countries Japan and Germany, this study aims to examine how the nuclear
energy crisis affects corporate activities in these countries. It is important to assess the vulnerability of thenuclear energy of both countries not only for corporate managers but also for policy makers and investors.
This is because energy is one of the most essential input sources for companies.
The purpose of this paper is to empirically examine whether changes in corporate environmental
performance took place through companies’ implementations of environmental policies from before 2011
to after 2011 in Germany and Japan. The research specifically focuses on companies in the non-financial
and non-energy sectors because these sectors likely need to adopt a flexible attitude considering
environmental efficiency in and after 2011. This research accounts for corporate characteristics using ninedifferent environmental policies from Bloomberg Professional database, and examines policy effects on
corporate environmental performance between pre 2011 and post 2011.
This study is structured as follows. Section 2 provides a general overview of the policy andindustry trends both Germany and in Japan, and previous studies about environmental efficiency andcorporate governance. Section 3 explains the data and model of this study, examining to what extent
corporate environmental performance is affected by corporate policies. Section 4 explores and discusses theresults of the regression with business implications, and Section 5 concludes.

22. Background
2.1 GERMANY
Germany has the strongest economy of Europe and is ranked fourth after the United States, China,
and Japan in terms of GDP (World Bank, 2014). It is a member state of the European Union (EU) andtherefore has to build up its energy policy in accordance with the requirements of the EU. Due to a lack ofenergy resources like oil or gas, the EU is importing more than half of all of its energy supply from non-EU
countries. It is expected by the European Commission that, until 2050, the trend will rise to even 84%
regarding oil supplies and 93% regarding the natural gas supply. In order to decrease dependency andsecure a steady energy supply for the whole European region, a long-term European energy strategy isneeded. (Bundesverband der Deutschen Industrie (BDI), 2015a). The BDI acts as a representative organ of
the needs and wants of the German industries. Currently, the BDI comprises 36 member federations,
including one working group, and represents the interests of 100,000 businesses, with 8 million employees(BDI, 2015b).
In order to promote the deployment of low-carbon technologies, the BDI patronizes support
measures for renewable energies as long as these measures are cost-efficient and competition neutral.
Already in 2010, the German Government decided on the implementation of an energy system that will
pave the way for entering the new era of renewable energy. At this point, the government still intended torely on nuclear energy as a bridging function to the point where the country is able to rely solely on
renewable energy. Its principal objective is to ensure the provision of environmentally friendly, reliable,
and affordable energy supply while turning Germany into one of the greenest economies in the world.
With the Fukushima nuclear disaster of 2011, the German Government updated the energy concept
and decided to incrementally shut down all German nuclear power plants by the year 2022 to reflect theaccelerated shift to renewable energy (Energiewende). More specifically, the strategy aims to increase theshare of renewable energies in electricity generation to 35% by 2020 and reduce demand for primaryenergy by 50% by 2050. Furthermore, the government is promoting the expansion of the electricity
network and the use of electric vehicles (FMEAE, 2011). In addition, several legislative acts have been
agreed on in 2011 to implement this strategy. In December 2012, the government presented the first annual3monitoring report on the progress of the Energy Concept. Accordingly, increased action is required
regarding energy efficiency and the expansion of the electricity grid (FMEAE, 2011).
As stated by the BDI, the German energy policies have a great effect on the total energy market,
the communication and cooperation of the participating actors, and electric users. That is why the BDI
represents the opinion that a sustainable energy policy, premised on the market economy and aligned to thewhole European continent, established through systematic thinking and integrated answers is essential tostructure and the secure an sustainable and affordable electricity market of the future (BDI, 2015b).
Already in 2001, the Germany Government, at that time under the lead of the Social Democratic Party ofGermany (SPD), decided on a nuclear exit plan. However, this plan was overturned in 2005 when there wasa change in the leading party from SPD to the Christian Democratic Union of Germany (CDU) under thelead of Chancellor Angela Merkel. With this shift, the CDU intended to prevent dependency on othernations and implement a slower but more considerate change to renewable energy (Focus, 2005). Since
2005, the CDU steadily stood by its intention to keep the nuclear power plants of Germany running forseveral years. This changed abruptly with the Fukushima nuclear disaster of 2011. After the disaster, theparty changed its general principle of supporting nuclear energy to a new nuclear exit plan. The
government directly shut down the seven oldest power plants in Germany and decided on a total nuclear
exit by the year 2022 (Regional Center for Political Education, 2011).
The above-stated events and resulting changes suggest that there are visible changes regarding theimplementation of environmental policy and their effect on corporate performance before and after the year
2011 in Germany. This study hypothesizes and assesses whether environmental performance actuallychanges in the empirical model, which is explained below.

2.2 JAPAN
Keidanren (Japan Business Federation) in Japan is an economic association that has 1,329 Japanesecompanies, 109 nationwide industry associations, and a total of 47 regional economic organizations as its
members. The federation’s mission is to make its contributions to the development of the Japanese
economy by supporting the activities of not only corporations but also local communities and individuals.

4In addition, Keidanren aims to continuously increase the quality of life for the Japanese population(Keidanren, 2015a).
In December 2009, Keidanren announced that, in order to achieve a low-carbon society, it aims toplay an instrumental role as a member of the Japanese business community in an effort to halve the global
greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by the year 2050 (Keidanren, 2015b). In order to approach that issue, theKeidanren will stick to its Commitment to a Low Carbon Society. The commitment is based on thefollowing four individual pillars (Keidanren 2015c): (1) maximizing the introduction of best available lowcarbon technologies in corporate activities, (2) developing and commercializing products and services thatharness world-leading energy-saving technologies for consumers, (3) transferring technology and expertiseto other countries, and (4) developing innovative technologies.
There is a clear effect of the Fukushima nuclear disaster on Japan’s energy efficiency visible indirectly after the disaster. When the nuclear power plants were shut down, the available total amount ofelectricity, supplied by ten main suppliers, decreased by nine percent in July 2011, compared to theprevious year. As a measurement to deal with the electricity shortage, a nationwide media campaign called
setsuden (“power saving” in Japanese) was started in order to support the necessary limited use ofelectricity. The setsuden included turning off Tokyo’s famous neon lights, slowing down trains, promoting
dressed-down outfits, and scheduling the use of air conditioning as well as simply switching lights off whenleaving the room (The Guardian, 2011). According to the data provided by the Statistics Bureau of Japan,
setsuden was effective, and energy consumption (i.e., domestic primary energy supply) went down from a
total of 22,039 petajoules in 2010 to 21,154 petajoules in 2011 and 20,819 petajoules in 2012 (Statistics
Bureau of Japan, 2015).
Following the background of Japan as stated above, this study focuses on the change ofenvironmental efficiency (i.e., sales per GHG) at the firm level. Especially, this study aims to examine whatkind of the companies can adapt to the environment adequately, considering their corporate policies.

2.3 Literature review
In the extant literature, the relationship between environmental management and corporate
performance has been discussed widely. While a number of authors articulate the view that the protection5

of the environment increases costs, a second group represents the opinion that protecting the environment
can be highly beneficial and can increase corporate performance (Porter and van der Linde, 1995). Bothpoints of view find supporters in form of empirical studies in the existing literature. However, Wagner(2001) argues that there seems to be a large amount of studies arguing in favor of the hypothesis that there
is no negative effect on corporate performance when engaging in environmental protection or, at least, that
there is evidence that a poor environmental performance does not benefit the corporate performance.
Wang et al. (2013) argue that there is a link between the amount of GHG emissions and corporate
financial performance. The study discusses the above-mentioned relationship by using the 2010 GHG
emission dataset from 69 Australian companies listed on the ASX 200. The research is conducted the dataof finds that both are significantly positively correlated.
Wagner and Schaltegger (2004) examine the relationship between the environmental and economic
performance of companies in the European manufacturing sector, focusing on the influence of corporate
environmental strategy choice. The study is constructed by using multiple regression models and the dataof surveys that are sent to 1000 firms in the UK and 2000 firms in Germany with 301 valid responses, 135
in the UK and 166 in Germany. The study concludes that the relationship between environmental
performance and different dimensions of economic performance is more positive for firms with shareholder
value-oriented strategies than for firms without such a strategy.
As criticized in the literature, however, the relationship between the implementation ofenvironmental policies and corporate performance can be found as positive, negative, or even neutral.
Schaltegger and Synnestvedt (2002) argue that this relationship variety might be a result of the limited sizeand coverage of the data sets used. That is, it is difficult to achieve clear results as the influence of
implementing environmental policies on corporate performance, and it seems to be much smaller than theinfluence of other potential factors.
The literature has examined that there are studies supporting both the assumption that
implementing environmental policies has a positive effect or that it has a negative or no effect on corporate
performance. This study focuses mainly on the effect of macro shocks on the corporate behaviour ofcompanies in the non-financial and non-energy sectors. As a corporate behaviour, this study uses
environmental efficiency. The reason this study focuses on these sectors is that these sectors are less likely

6to be regulatory sectors, and hence, corporate adaption to nuclear disaster is expected to vary. Examining
the response of companies will be informative not only for (rival) companies, but also policy makers,
investors, and so on.

3. Methodology
3.1 ModelThis study examines how environmental efficiency changes between pre- and post-2011 periods
through corporate policies. This study calculates environmental efficiency as sales divided by GHG in thelogarithm form. This is because the nuclear energy crisis should affect largely the energy policies of eachcompany (or, equivalently, GHG emissions). This study firstly examines if the environmental efficiency
has changed between pre- and post-2011 periods, using interaction terms as follows:

(1)

where

denotes a dummy variable if the firm is observed in the post-2011 period. CONj denotes

jth control variables, which are total assets in the log-form, capital labor ratio in the log-form, and return on
assets.

denotes year t fixed effects, and e denotes an error term.
Then, this study examines if the environmental efficiency has changed through environmental

policies in the following equation:

(2
)

7

where POLk denotes corporate policy k.

anddenote dummy variables if the firm isobserved in Germany post 2011 or in Japan post 2011, respectively.

3.2 Data
This study uses the global firm dataset from the Bloomberg professional service. It is a service
through which users can monitor and analyze real-time financial market data and place trades on anelectronic trading platform. Most large financial firms have subscriptions to the Bloomberg Professional
service (Bloomberg, 2015). Table 1 shows descriptive statistics of this study. It targets the environmental
performance of companies in Germany and in Japan that are active in the non-financial and non-energy
sectors because these sectors likely need to adopt a flexible attitude considering environmental efficiency inand after 2011. The number of observations in the original dataset is 832 over a seven-year period (20062012). The observations are 26, 45, 74, 115, 183, 190, and 199 from 2006 to 2012, respectively. 1
This study observes the environmental performance of companies in the following seven different
sectors in accordance with the Global Industry Classification Standard: materials, industrials, consumer
discretionary, consumer stables, health care, information technology, and telecommunication services. The
dependent variable (as corporate environmental performance) is defined as a firm’s sales divided bycorporate direct GHG emissions (Scope 1) in the logarithm form (i.e., ln(sales/Scope1)). The independent
variables are the following nine corporate policies, which all are dummy variables: 1) Emission Reduction
Policy, 2) Green Building Policy, 3) Climate Change Policy, 4) Environmental Quality Management Policy,5) Biodiversity Policy, 6) Energy Efficiency Policy, 7) Sustainable Packaging Policy, 8) Environmental
Supply Chain Management Policy, and 9) Waste Reduction Policy.
1) Emission Reduction Policy refers to the emission reduction initiatives that are undertaken by afirm and indicates whether the company has implemented any initiatives to reduce its environmental
emissions to air. 2) Green Building Policy indicates whether the company has taken any steps towards
using environmental technologies and/or environmental principles in the design and construction of its
buildings. 3) Climate Change Policy indicates whether the company has outlined its intention to help
reduce global emissions of the GHGs that cause climate change through its ongoing operations and/or the1

However, there is no data for Japan in 2012.

8

use of its products and services. Examples in this field might include efforts to reduce GHG emissions,
efforts to improve energy efficiency, efforts to derive energy from cleaner fuel sources, and investment inproduct development to reduce emissions generated or energy consumed in the use of the company's
products. 4) Environmental Quality Management Policy indicates whether the company has introduced any
kind of environmental quality management and/or environmental management system to help reduce theenvironmental footprint of its operations. 5) Biodiversity Policy indicates whether the company has
implemented any initiatives to ensure the protection of biodiversity. This might include trees and vegetation
as well as wildlife and endangered species. 6) Energy Efficiency Policy indicates whether the company has
implemented any initiatives to make its use of energy more efficient. 7) Sustainable Packaging indicates
whether the company has taken any steps to make its packaging more environmentally friendly. This might
involve efforts to improve the recyclability of packaging, to use less environmentally damaging materials inpackaging, etc. 8) Environmental Supply Chain Management indicates whether the company has
implemented any initiatives to reduce the environmental footprint of its supply chain. Environmental
footprint reductions could be achieved by reducing waste, by reducing resource use, by reducing
environmental emissions, by insisting on the introduction of environmental management systems, etc., in
the supply chain. 9) Waste Reduction Policy indicates whether the company has implemented any
initiatives to reduce the waste generated during the course of its operations.

4. Results
The regression results are shown in Table 2 (equation 1) and Table 3 (equation 2). Columns 1, 2,
and 3 indicate the results of using the German sample, Japanese sample, and both samples, respectively. In
terms of equation 1, the coefficient of

is not statistically significant in column 1, and is

statistically significantly different from zero and positive in columns 2 and 3. It indicates that the change ofenvironmental efficiency between pre- and post-2011 is not found in Germany, but is found in Japan (andin both countries). Especially, the coefficient shows that companies in the non-financial and non-energy
sectors in Japan had experienced 22.8% increase in environmental efficiency in (post-)2011.

9

In terms of equation 3 (regression with corporate policies), the coefficient of Green Building
Policy is statistically significantly different from zero and positive in columns 1 and 3. These findings
indicate that companies in Germany have increasingly been implementing Green Building Policies and thatthey have had a positive effect on corporate performance. Through implementing this policy, an estimated
33% increase in environmental efficiency has occurred. However, there is no such visible change in Japan,
suggesting that the difference in implementing corporate policies does not lead to the difference inenvironmental efficiency.
In terms of the interaction terms between post-2011 and corporate policies, the results show that all
coefficients are not statistically significant. These findings indicate that there is no sign about which
corporate policies are effective for the (nuclear) energy crisis from pre- to post-2011 both in Germany andJapan.
The regression results furthermore show that, in terms of year dummies (baseline: 2006), thecoefficient of year 2007 is statistically significant from zero and negative in column 2. This indicates that,compared to 2006, the sample in Japan had experienced a 46.3% decrease in the environmental efficiency.
This could be due to the general financial situation in Japan. In Japan in 2007, the economy was doing very
well, seen on a rising GDP growth rate, peaking in 2007 at a high of 2.2 percent (World Bank 2015). Thisbooming economy in the short run may present a competitive disadvantage from the viewpoint of GHG
emissions.

5. Conclusion
This study empirically examines whether there were changes in corporate environmental
performance through companies’ implementation of environmental policies from the pre-2011 to post-2011
periods in Germany and Japan. This study focuses on companies in the non-financial and non-energy
sectors, using Bloomberg professional database. If firstly examines whether the environmental efficiency
has changed between the pre- and post-2011 periods. Rough examination of pre- and post-2011 data
reveals a significant change regarding the Japanese sample. Secondly, this study examined whether theenvironmental efficiency has changed through environmental policies. It is found that, in eight out of the10

nine cases, there is no effect of implementing the environmental policies on corporate efficiency. Only the
implementation of Green Building Policy is found to improve the environmental efficiency, but only in theGerman sample. In addition, using year dummies between 2007-2012 (baseline: 2006), compared to 2006,
the sample in Japan had experienced a 46.3% decrease in the environmental efficiency in 2007, probably
due to the booming economy in 2007.
Following the result, this study suggests important implications. As seen in the above sections,
there have been major changes in energy policy and also energy efficiency in both observed countries. Bothcountries decided on the nuclear exit, and both countries are taking several measurements to ensure a more
efficient use of energy. However, non-energy and non-financial sectors both in Germany and Japan seem tobe less likely to take action regarding environmental policies and against the nuclear energy crisis resulting
from the Fukushima disaster in 2011. This indicates that the companies in the above mentioned sectors
show certain slowness in adapting their corporate behavior to macro shocks such as, in this case, theFukushima nuclear disaster. On the contrary, it implies that implementing environmental policies does nothave any negative effect on corporate performance; hence, in order to satisfy other aspects such as
customers and consumers following the governmental energy policy trends, this result may indicate that itis still advisable to implement environmental policies, even if there is no positive effect on corporate
performance visible in the short run. In summary, the study suggests that there are a wide variety ofpolicies that lead to an unclear effect on environmental performance.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
This study was carried out as part of the SESAMI project in Kobe University and was supported byresearch grant from the Research Institute of Advanced Management. We would like to thank Masashi
Yasuda, Ryuji Shimono, and all concerned members of Panasonic Corp. for arranging and coordinating ourresearch survey.

11References
BDI (2015a). Energy and Climate. Retrieved 10/07/2015 fromhttp://www.bdi.eu/BDI_english/458.htm.
BDI (2015b). BDI – Federation of German Industries. Retrieved 05/07/2015 fromhttp://www.bdi.eu/BDI_english/index.htm.
Bloomberg (2015). Bloomberg Terminal – Products and Solutions. Retrieved 29/06/2015 fromhttp://www.bloomberg.com/professional/products-solutions/.
Carpenter, S. (2012). Japan’s Nuclear Crisis. The Routes to Responsibility.
Chippenham, Eastbourne: Palgrave Macimillian.
FMEAE (2011). Energy of the Future. Retrieved 05/07/205 fromhttp://www.bmwi.de/EN/Topics/Energy/Energy-Transition/overall-strategy.html.
Focus (2005).
CDU will Atomausstieg rückgängig machen[CDU wants do undo the nuclear
exit plan]. Retrieved 17/07/2015 from http://www.focus.de/politik/deutschland/atom-cdu-willatomausstieg-rueckgaengig-machen_aid_368700.html.
Keidanren (2015a). About Keidanren. Retrieved 05/07/2015 fromhttp://www.keidanren.or.jp/en/profile/pro001.html.
Keidanren (2015b). Keidanren Action Plan on the Environment. Retrieved 05/07/2015 fromhttp://www.keidanren.or.jp/en/policy/2013/102_report.pdf.
Keidanren (2015c). Contributing to Tackle Global Warming. Retrieved 06/07/2015 fromhttp://www.keidanren.or.jp/en/policy/2014/065.html.
LPB. (2011). Die Energiewende 2011 [The energy transition2011]. Retrieved 17/07/2015 fromhttp://www.lpb-bw.de/energiewende.html.
Porter, M. and C. van der Linde. (1995). Green and competitive. Harvard Business Review. SeptemberOctober 1995: 121-134.
Schaltegger S. and T. Synnestvedt (2002). The link between `green' and economic success:environmental management as the crucial trigger between environmental and economic
performance. Journal of Environmental Management 65: 339 – 346.
Statistics Bureau of Japan (2015). Supply and Demand of Domestic Energy. Retrieved 21/07/2015 fromhttp://www.stat.go.jp/english/data/nenkan/1431-10.htm.
The Guardian. (2011). Energy-saving 'setsuden' campaign sweeps Japan after Fukushima. Retrieved 17/
07/2015 fromhttp://www.theguardian.com/environment/2011/aug/22/energy-saving-setsuden-japan-fukushima.
Wagner, M. (2001). A Review of Empirical Studies Concerning the Relationship Between Environmental
and Economic Performance. What Does the Evidence Tell Us? Lueneburg: Center for
Sustainability Management (CSM).
Wagner, M and S. Schaltegger (2004). The Effect of Corporate Environmental Strategy Choice andEnvironmental Performance on Competitiveness and Economic Performance: An Empirical Studyof EU Manufacturing. European Management Journal 22/5: 557–572.
Wang et al. (2013). Do Greenhouse Gas Emissions Affect Financial Performance? Business Strategy andthe Environment 23: 505–519.
World
Bank
(2014). Gross Domestic Product 2013. Retrieved 05/07/2015 fromhttp://databank.worldbank.org/data/download/GDP.pdf.
Word Bank (2015) Japan - Global Economic Prospects - Forecasts. Retrieved 21/07/2015 fromhttp://data.worldbank.org/country/japan?display=graph.

12

Table 1. Descriptive Statistics
Variable
Obs
Mean
Std.Dev.
ln (Sales/ GHG)
832
24.766
1.981
Emission Reduction Policy
832
0.966
0.180
Green Building Policy
832
0.109
0.312
Climate Change Policy
832
0.895
0.306
Environmental Quality Management
832
0.944
0.231
Biodiversity Policy
832
0.613
0.487
Energy Efficiency Policy
832
0.965
0.184
Sustainable Packaging
832
0.350
0.477
Environmental Supply Chain Management
832
0.865
0.342
Waste Reduction Policy
832
0.893
0.309
ln (Total Assest)
832
23.3391.255
ln (Capital Labour)832
11.7280.878
Return on Assets
832
0.057
0.050

13

Min
17.395
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
19.4919.158−0.360Max
31.245
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
26.73514.3220.427

Table 2. Regression Results

Dummy of post-2011 (0:pre-2011; 1:post-2011)ln (total assets)ln (capital labour)
Return on Assets
constant
Fixed effects
year dummies
obs
group
R-squared:
withinbetweenoverall(1)Germany
Coef.
0.006
0.201
−0.3371.068
23.611***
Yes
No
190
47
0.02540.01300.0151

S.E.
0.067
0.184
0.250
0.799
4.335

(2)
Japan
Coef.
0.228***
0.024−1.02***
0.259
36.191***
Yes
No
642
180

S.E.
0.086
0.347
0.328
1.147
8.005

0.03800.07070.0789Note: *** and ** denote 1% and 5% levels of statistical significance, respectively.

14(3)
Germany and Japan
Coef.
S.E.
0.131**
0.058−0.1960.211−0.712***
0.236
0.901
0.796
28.421***
4.857
Yes
No
832
227
0.02850.07150.0732

Table 3. Regression Results with corporate policies

Emission Reduction Policy
Green Building Policy
Climate Change Policy
Environmental Quality Management
Biodiversity Policy
Energy Efficiency Policy
Sustainable Packaging
Environmental Supply Chain Management
Waste Reduction Policy
Interaction term of post-2011 in Germany
Emission Reduction Policy
Green Building Policy
Climate Change Policy
Environmental Quality Management
Biodiversity Policy
Energy Efficiency Policy
Sustainable Packaging
Environmental Supply Chain Management
Waste Reduction Policy
Interaction term of post-2011 in Japan
Emission Reduction Policy
Green Building Policy
Climate Change Policy
Environmental Quality Management
Biodiversity Policy
Energy Efficiency Policy
Sustainable Packaging
Environmental Supply Chain Management
Waste Reduction Policyln (total assets)ln (capital labour)
Return on Assets
year dummies
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
constant
Fixed effects
obs
group
R-squared:
withinbetweenoverall(1)Germany
Coef.
0.264
0.331*
0.077
0.227
0.154
−0.102−0.291
0.190−0.065

S.E.
0.202
0.183
0.171
0.162
0.152
0.216
0.266
0.150
0.162

−0.164−0.2490.120−0.019−0.1830.507
0.150−0.069−0.125

0.328
0.180
0.222
0.302
0.180
0.323
0.223
0.198
0.164

0.120
−0.4132.001**

0.196
0.276
0.947

0.018
0.161
0.247
0.059
−0.108−0.10025.688***
Yes
190
47

0.172
0.175
0.176
0.183
0.463
0.475
4.592

0.228
0.002
0.005

(2)
Japan
Coef.
―
0.265
0.318
−0.306−0.155―−0.1500.397−0.037

S.E.
―
0.262
0.292
0.377
0.126
―
0.151
0.305
0.772

(3)
Germany and Japan
Coef.
S.E.
0.317
0.315
0.329*
0.181
0.106
0.183
0.178
0.194
−0.1150.103−0.1300.329−0.147
0.132
0.156
0.173
−0.0950.215−0.178−0.2240.033−0.024−0.0460.397
0.046−0.121−0.046

0.519
0.252
0.317
0.455
0.268
0.515
0.270
0.308
0.257

0.810
−0.217−0.4200.666−0.185―0.173−0.177−0.159−0.906**−1.100***
1.072

0.934
0.246
0.386
0.590
0.186
―
0.133
0.255
0.756
0.454
0.349
1.312

―
−0.244−0.1590.170−0.1430.407
0.172−0.037−0.037−0.190−0.707***
1.489

―
0.204
0.310
0.440
0.166
0.970
0.122
0.225
0.576
0.245
0.249
0.909

−0.463*
0.255
0.093
0.314
−0.066―58.281***
Yes
642
180

0.245
0.261
0.254
0.272
0.084
―
10.498−0.240
0.198
0.139
0.216
0.095
0.146
36.773***
Yes
832
227

0.173
0.177
0.174
0.184
0.696
0.700
5.694

0.093
0.018
0.025

0.077
0.060
0.070

Note: ***, **, and * denote 1%, 5%, and 10% levels of statistical significance, respectively.
[2015.11.5 1209]

15