||Germany, and Switzerland in<br>2014.|energy costs. However, this effect is observed only for<br>19% of firms with the highest energy costs.|
|---|---|---|
|Rath et al. (2019)|The panel cointegration tests<br>and dynamic OLS are<br>applied to panel data of 36<br>countries for 1981-2013.|<br>Generally, the increase in renewable energy<br>consumption positively affects the TFP growth in the<br>long run, while the increase in fossil fuel consumption<br>has a mixed effect on TFP growth.|
|Zhang et al. (2019)|The modified fixed<br>investment model is applied<br>to data of 34000 Chinese<br>firms in 2013.|The environmental abatement crowds out innovation<br>investment and decreases firms’ productivity due to<br>financial constraints.|
|Palmer and Truong<br>(2017)|Data on 1020 technological<br>green products between 2007<br>and 2012 by 79 global firms<br>are used.|The relationship between technological green new<br>product introductions and firm profitability is positive.|
|Hrovatin et al. (2016)|The probit and bivariate<br>probit models are applied to<br>the panel data set of 848<br>Slovenian manufacturing<br>firms during 2005-2011.|Large firms with high energy costs tend to invest both<br>in EE and green technology to increase productivity<br>and to improve their competitive position in the<br>market. Non-environmental investments by the firms<br>do not crowd out green/clean technology investments.|
|Tugcu & Tiwari<br>(2016)|A panel bootstrap Granger<br>causality analysis of Konya<br>is used for BRICS countries<br>for 1992 to 2012.|The relationship between green technology and TFP<br>growth is less substantial than that between non-green<br>technology and TFP growth. In some cases, green<br>technology has a positive effect on TFP growth.|
|Hottenrott et al. (2016)|A two-stage least squares<br>regression analysis of firm-<br>level panel data of Germany<br>covering the period from<br>2000 to 2008.|Firms can achieve higher TFP gains from adopting new<br>technologies if they adapt their organizational<br>structures. Such complementarity effects may be of<br>particular importance for the adoption of GHG<br>abatement technologies.|
|Rubashkina et al.<br>(2015)|The instrumental variable<br>estimation approach is used<br>for manufacturing sectors of<br>17 European countries<br>between 1997 and 2009.|There is a positive impact of environmental regulation<br>on the output of innovation activity, as proxied by<br>patents, thus providing support in favor of the “weak”<br>Porter hypothesis.|
|Horvathova (2012)|A measure of environmental<br>performance is applied to the<br>firm-level data from the<br>Czech Republic.|The effect of environmental performance on financial<br>performance is negative in the short run but it is<br>positive in the long run.|
|Böhringer et al. (2012)|<br>Econometric analysis is used<br>for a panel dataset of German<br>manufacturing sectors.|The environmental regulations stimulate environmental<br>investment to be compatible with the pursuit of<br>production growth.|
|Lanoie et al. (2008)|<br>An econometric approach is<br>used for 17 sectors in the<br>Quebec manufacturing<br>industry for 1985-1994.|<br>The impact of environmental regulation on<br>productivity is negative in the short run but it is<br>positive in the long run. This effect is stronger in a<br>subgroup of industries that are more exposed to<br>international competition.|
|Hamamoto (2006)|A reduced-form econometric<br>model is used for 5 Japanese<br>manufacturing industries in<br>the 1960s and 1970s.|<br>The pollution control expenditures have a positive<br>relationship with the R&D expenditures and a negative<br>relationship with the average age of capital stock. Also,<br>increases in R&D investment have a significant<br>positive effect on the growth rate of TFP.|

# **4. Green/Clean Investment at the Sectoral Level**

16