Loading...
|
Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
https://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/159253
|
| Title: | 碳政策對於企業創新之影響
The Impact of Carbon Policies on Corporate Innovation |
| Authors: | 劉宣妤
Liu, Hsuan-Yu |
| Contributors: | 柯玉佳
Ko, Yu-Chia
劉宣妤
Liu, Hsuan-Yu |
| Keywords: | 碳政策
臺灣碳費政策
水泥產業
企業創新
Carbon Policy
Taiwan Carbon Fee Policy
Cement Industry
Corporate Innovation |
| Date: | 2025 |
| Issue Date: | 2025-09-01 16:07:26 (UTC+8) |
| Abstract: | 本研究旨在探討碳政策如何影響水泥產業創新行為，回應現有文獻多聚焦於量化研究，對企業實務應對與政策互動缺乏深入理解。以臺灣為例，碳費政策雖已完成立法，但徵收尚未啟動，目前學界對碳費的討論大多著重於制度設計、費率規劃與經濟影響等宏觀層面，較少聚焦於企業在面對制度壓力下所採取的創新行動。為補足此一研究缺口，本研究採用質性個案研究法，以臺灣水泥業指標之企業T公司為研究對象，結合次級資料與深度訪談，分析企業在多重碳政策壓力下的創新回應。
研究發現，企業創新行為會受到政策嚴格程度影響，T公司因跨國營運布局，主要回應歐盟等高強度規範之政策壓力，創新反而較少受到臺灣的碳政策驅動。此外，不同碳政策對創新的影響亦具差異性：歐盟碳交易制度（EU ETS）與碳邊境調整機制（CBAM）作為高強制性碳定價工具，其明確的價格機制、完整的規範，直接將碳排放轉化為營運成本，對企業形成具體的財務壓力，進而促使其積極投入低碳技術之研發；SBTi與GCCA等國際倡議則透過供應鏈壓力與聲譽風險，驅動企業主動創新，影響力同樣不容忽視。反觀臺灣碳費制度，由於政策起步慢、尚未成熟，目前對企業創新尚未產生明顯驅動力。
在創新行動方面，T公司除自行研發多種低碳產品，亦透過增持股與國際合作的方式取得低碳技術。研究亦發現，影響企業創新行為的因素不僅限於碳政策本身，外部環境與企業內部因素也扮演著重要角色。企業內部如明確的永續願景與組織整合能力，為創新行動提供穩定支持；外部因素如社會接受度則影響創新成果落地的推動速度。
本研究透過對個案企業的深入剖析，深化對碳政策與企業創新互動的理解，說明企業如何回應不同類型政策壓力，並調整其創新行為，研究成果有助於補足現有文獻對企業實務應對的不足，並為未來政策設計提供啟示。
This study explores the impact of carbon policies on innovation behavior in the cement industry, addressing a gap in the literature that has largely relied on quantitative methods and lacks nuanced insights into how firms engage with and respond to policy measures. In Taiwan, although a carbon fee has been legislated, its implementation has yet to begin. As a result, academic discussions have largely focused on macro-level considerations—such as policy design, pricing mechanisms, and anticipated economic impacts—while giving limited attention to firm-level innovation responses. To fill this gap, this study adopts a qualitative case study approach focused on T Company, a leading cement manufacturer in Taiwan. Through the analysis of secondary sources and in-depth interviews, the research investigates how the company has responded to the carbon policy pressure through innovation.
The findings indicate that corporate innovation behavior is significantly influenced by the stringency and clarity of policy. Due to its multinational operations, T Company exhibits greater responsiveness to high-intensity regulatory regimes—particularly those in the European Union—while innovation prompted by Taiwan’s emerging carbon policies remains comparatively constrained. In addition, different carbon policy instruments exert varying effects on innovation, both in their mechanisms of influence and intensity. The EU Emissions Trading System (EU ETS) and the Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM), as binding and market-based instruments, impose direct financial pressure by translating carbon emissions into tangible operational costs through explicit pricing signals and comprehensive regulatory structures. These mechanisms serve as strong inducements for investment in low-carbon technologies. In contrast, voluntary international initiatives such as the Science Based Targets initiative (SBTi) and the Global Cement and Concrete Association (GCCA) exert influence primarily through reputational concerns and supply chain expectations, thereby encouraging firms to undertake self-initiated innovation efforts. Taiwan’s carbon fee policy, by comparison, has yet to exert a comparable level of influence on corporate innovation behavior.
With respect to innovation activities, T Company has not only engaged in the development of various low-carbon products but has also acquired access to low-carbon technologies through increased equity participation and international collaboration. The study further reveals that the determinants of innovation extend beyond regulatory pressures alone. Internal organizational factors, including a clearly articulated sustainability vision and robust integrative capacities, provide essential support for innovation. Externally, societal acceptance and market receptiveness play a critical role in shaping the diffusion and implementation of innovative outcomes.
By conducting an in-depth case analysis, this study advances understanding of the dynamic interplay between carbon policy regimes and corporate innovation strategies. It elucidates how firms adjust their innovation trajectories in response to diverse policy stimuli and institutional environments. This study contributes to addressing empirical gaps in the literature and offer practical implications for the design of more effective and innovation-oriented climate policies. |
| Reference: | 中文文獻
中華人民共和國生態環境部（2025）。關於印發《全國碳排放權交易市場覆蓋鋼鐵、水泥、鋁冶煉行業工作方案》的通知（研究計劃編號環氣候〔2025〕23號）。https://big5.mee.gov.cn/gate/big5/www.mee.gov.cn/xxgk2018/xxgk/xxgk03/202503/t20250326_1104736.html
台灣科技媒體中心（2024）。全球碳預算》2024碳排創新高！台灣想實現減量目標還需200年。
行政院公共工程委員會（2019）。第03050章 混凝土基本材料及施工一般要求。https://pcic.pcc.gov.tw/pwc-web/service/tec0301
行政院環境保護署氣候變遷辦公室（2021）。環保署預告修正「溫室氣體減量及管理法」為「氣候變遷因應法」。https://enews.moenv.gov.tw/page/3b3c62c78849f32f/de5ace9a-814a-47cb-8273-342ec0664511
何秀玲（2025）。台泥獲全球水泥及混凝土低碳評等 籲政府鬆綁法規。https://www.cna.com.tw/news/afe/202505070090.aspx
李堅明（2025）。如何因應台灣 ndc 3.0 減碳新目標？李堅明：宜提高碳權抵換比例與國際接軌。https://www.segreene.com/knowledge/%E5%A6%82%E4%BD%95%E5%9B%A0%E6%87%89%E5%8F%B0%E7%81%A3ndc-3-0%E6%B8%9B%E7%A2%B3%E6%96%B0%E7%9B%AE%E6%A8%99%EF%BC%9F-%E6%9D%8E%E5%A0%85%E6%98%8E%EF%BC%9A%E5%AE%9C%E6%8F%90%E9%AB%98%E7%A2%B3%E6%AC%8A/
李叢禎（2023）。碳定價與產業升級
沈寧衛（2023）。我國碳定價制度發展現況之探討。https://www.ly.gov.tw/Pages/List.aspx?nodeid=46342
周子琪、張名惠（2022）。水泥產業減碳技術發展現況與展望。https://www.materialsnet.com.tw/DocView.aspx?id=51432
林金定、嚴嘉楓、陳美花（2005）。質性研究方法: 訪談模式與實施步驟分析。身心障礙研究季刊，3（2），122-136。
林雨璇、林怡均（2024）。碳費開徵晚、費率低、優惠多還可豁免 台灣碳定價四大驚奇對企業真的是好事？。https://csr.cw.com.tw/article/43575
林彥呈（2023）。兼顧永續和經濟發展，能源問題怎解？善用建材優勢，台泥打造強韌儲能系統。https://smart.businessweekly.com.tw/Channel/IndepArticle.aspx?id=6012950
林柏宇（2025）。國家自定貢獻ndc為何重要？台灣2035年減碳38%，一文掌握ndc3.0提報進程。https://www.reccessary.com/zh-tw/news/what-is-ndc
林苾瑜（2024）。臺灣碳權市場趨勢報告。https://www.sme.gov.tw/caas/article-caas-3010-14354
法提姆（2016）。氣候變遷的政治與政策(摘要)。https://tccip.ncdr.nat.gov.tw/km_column_one.aspx?kid=20160621141101
邱琮皓（2025）。碳費2026年5月如期開徵 估算徵收對產業經營影響非常小。https://money.udn.com/money/story/7307/8674507
徐千偉（2014）。我國政府因應氣候變遷的治理政策。我が国政府が気候変動対応のためのガバナンス政策) 人文與社會科學簡訊，15（2），25-32。
氣候與能源專案小組, 綠.（2021）。臺灣溫室氣體減量及管理法現況概要與修法建議。https://www.greenpeace.org/taiwan/update/24538/%E8%87%BA%E7%81%A3%E6%BA%AB%E5%AE%A4%E6%B0%A3%E9%AB%94%E6%B8%9B%E9%87%8F%E5%8F%8A%E7%AE%A1%E7%90%86%E6%B3%95%E7%8F%BE%E6%B3%81%E6%A6%82%E8%A6%81%E8%88%87%E4%BF%AE%E6%B3%95%E5%BB%BA%E8%AD%B0/
袁延壽（2024）。張安平：台泥四足鼎立 穩定獲利。https://www.ctee.com.tw/news/20240522700099-439901
袁延壽（2025）。市場需求增 進口水泥量登高峰。https://www.ctee.com.tw/news/20250402701768-430503
理財網 （2023）。 Dj café ep.69 首座水泥防火儲能櫃，台泥新能源產業鏈亮相 （）。
郭孟芸, 蔡. 黃.（2023）。氣候變遷因應法修法過程及未來展望。政府審計季刊，43（2），18–25。
陳志賢、曾昱中、陳志宗（2022年）。我國水泥業淨零排放策略及實務探討。
陳育聖、許瑞紋、梁喬茵（2023）。石灰石水泥混凝土國際減碳發展與國內應用瓶頸。營建知訊，（491），23-38。
陳映璇（2024）。「純氧燃燒」碳捕捉是什麼？台泥攜手德國新伙伴，拚1年捕獲10萬噸碳。https://www.bnext.com.tw/article/78302/taiwancement-ccus-oxy-fuel
楊絡懸（2022）。【科技人帶路】泥娃娃如何綠化翻身？張安平揭示「台泥轉型策略」：從烏雲縫隙探進希望光芒。https://tw.stock.yahoo.com/news/%E5%BC%B5%E5%AE%89%E5%B9%B3%E6%8F%AD%E7%A4%BA%E3%80%8C%E5%8F%B0%E6%B3%A5%E8%BD%89%E5%9E%8B%E7%AD%96%E7%95%A5%E3%80%8D%EF%BC%9A%E5%BE%9E%E7%83%8F%E9%9B%B2%E7%B8%AB%E9%9A%99%E6%8E%A2%E9%80%B2%E5%B8%8C%E6%9C%9B%E5%85%89%E8%8A%92-004046130.html
經濟部標準檢驗局（2022）。修正「應施檢驗水泥商品之相關檢驗規定」[公告]。https://gazette.nat.gov.tw/EG_FileManager/eguploadpub/eg028090/ch04/type1/gov31/num7/Eg.htm
葉毓君、陳心怡（2022）。台泥減碳永續之路-節能, 儲能, 創能。營建知訊，（476），32-40。
鄒思宇（2024）。混凝土淨零排放的國際發展趨勢及技術。營建知訊，（494），38-48。
劉十賢（2023）。迎接排碳有價時代，蔡玲儀：碳費制度接軌國際。https://visionproject.org.tw/story/6907
劉欣妤（2023）。歐盟碳邊境調整機制對我國的可能影響與因應https://ws.ndc.gov.tw/Download.ashx?u=LzAwMS9hZG1pbmlzdHJhdG9yLzEwL3JlbGZpbGUvMC8xNTU2My82NTlmYTYzNy01YjQ4LTQ0YWEtYTM4NS1kYzU2M2NmNjI0NzgucGRm&n=MTAu5q2Q55uf56Kz6YKK5aKD6Kq%2F5pW05qmf5Yi25bCN5oiR5ZyL55qE5Y%2Bv6IO95b2x6Z%2B%2F6IiH5Zug5oeJLnBkZg%3D%3D&icon=.pdf
劉家瑜（2023）。全球首座！台泥首推水泥儲能櫃，「三段式」自動滅火，國際籌資260億到位。https://tw.stock.yahoo.com/news/%E5%85%A8%E7%90%83%E9%A6%96%E5%BA%A7-%E5%8F%B0%E6%B3%A5%E9%A6%96%E6%8E%A8%E6%B0%B4%E6%B3%A5%E5%84%B2%E8%83%BD%E6%AB%83-%E4%B8%89%E6%AE%B5%E5%BC%8F-%E8%87%AA%E5%8B%95%E6%BB%85%E7%81%AB-%E5%9C%8B%E9%9A%9B%E7%B1%8C%E8%B3%87260%E5%84%84%E5%88%B0%E4%BD%8D-075300447.html
蔡玲儀（2025）。碳價入法、減碳有道！臺灣企業如何從「碳費旁觀者」轉型「永續主導者」？。https://www.tcx.com.tw/learn/studio/articleContent/402890849407943e01946d2b07ac02a3
賴昀辰（2021）。檢視容克執委會 的規範性權力作為: 以環境政策為例。Taiwanese Journal of Political Science，（87）。
環境部氣候變遷署（2023）。溫室氣體減量及管理法修正草案總說明
環境部氣候變遷署（2024a）。2024 年中華民國國家溫室氣體排放清冊報告https://www.cca.gov.tw/information-service/publications/national-ghg-inventory-report/12003.html
環境部氣候變遷署（2024b）。碳費專區。https://www.cca.gov.tw/affairs/carbon-fee-fund/2301.html
環境部氣候變遷署（2024c）。環境部公告「碳費徵收費率」。https://enews.moenv.gov.tw/Page/3B3C62C78849F32F/3a0a408a-33e5-4a0d-9939-23e8222c5284
環境部氣候變遷署（2024d）。環境部重申 不應以碳費為由哄抬房價。https://enews.moenv.gov.tw/Page/3B3C62C78849F32F/885b9600-a17e-40b0-b87c-45dd4c554891
藍于洺（2024）。拚了！台泥、亞泥推低碳水泥 防減少碳排節能。https://tw.news.yahoo.com/%E6%8B%9A%E4%BA%86-%E5%8F%B0%E6%B3%A5-%E4%BA%9E%E6%B3%A5%E6%8E%A8%E4%BD%8E%E7%A2%B3%E6%B0%B4%E6%B3%A5-%E7%9B%BC%E6%B8%9B%E5%B0%91%E7%A2%B3%E6%8E%92%E7%AF%80%E8%83%BD-125543482.html
譚淑珍、袁延壽（2023）。低碳水泥貨物稅元旦起調降：鼓勵業者推動減碳，每公噸估從440元調降至220元，幅度約50%。https://www.ctee.com.tw/news/20231229700070-439901
英文文獻
Afuah, A. (2003). Innovation management. Oxford univ. press.
Aghion, P., Dechezleprêtre, A., Hemous, D., Martin, R., & Van Reenen, J. (2016). Carbon taxes, path dependency, and directed technical change: Evidence from the auto industry. Journal of political Economy, 124(1), 1-51.
Akcigit, U., & Stantcheva, S. (2020). Taxation and innovation: What do we know?
Albrizio, S., Kozluk, T., & Zipperer, V. (2017). Environmental policies and productivity growth: Evidence across industries and firms. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 81, 209-226.
Ambec, S., Cohen, M. A., Elgie, S., & Lanoie, P. (2013). The Porter hypothesis at 20: can environmental regulation enhance innovation and competitiveness? Review of environmental economics and policy.
Anderson, B. J., Convery, F., & Di Maria, C. (2010). Technological change and the EU ETS: the case of Ireland. Available at SSRN 1687944.
Arrow, K. J. (1993). Innovation in large and small firms. Journal of Small Business Finance, 2(2), 111-124.
Asokan, G. (2024). Shipping EU ETS and decarbonization strategies for emission reduction University of South-Eastern Norway].
Bank, W. (2024). State and Trends of Carbon Pricing 2024. W. Bank. https://hdl.handle.net/10986/41544
Barbhuiya, S., Kanavaris, F., Das, B. B., & Idrees, M. (2024). Decarbonising cement and concrete production: Strategies, challenges and pathways for sustainable development. Journal of Building Engineering, 108861.
Barr, P. S., Stimpert, J. L., & Huff, A. S. (1992). Cognitive change, strategic action, and organizational renewal. Strategic management journal, 13(S1), 15-36.
Baumol, W. J., & Oates, W. E. (1971). The use of standards and prices for protection of the environment. In The Economics of Environment: Papers from Four Nations (pp. 53-65). Springer.
Baumol, W. J., & Oates, W. E. (1988). The theory of environmental policy. Cambridge university press.
Benz, E., Löschel, A., & Sturm, B. (2010). Auctioning of CO2 emission allowances in Phase 3 of the EU Emissions Trading Scheme. Climate Policy, 10(6), 705-718.
Bernauer, T., Engels, S., Kammerer, D., & Seijas, J. (2006). Explaining green innovation: ten years after Porter's win-win proposition: how to study the effects of regulation on corporate environmental innovation? CIS working paper, 17(2006).
Borghesi, S., Crespi, F., D’Amato, A., Mazzanti, M., & Silvestri, F. (2015). Carbon abatement, sector heterogeneity and policy responses: evidence on induced eco innovations in the EU. Environmental Science & Policy, 54, 377-388.
Boslaugh, S., & Boslaugh, S. (2007). An introduction to secondary data analysis. Secondary data sources for public health: A practical guide, 2-10.
Branger, F., & Quirion, P. (2014). Would border carbon adjustments prevent carbon leakage and heavy industry competitiveness losses? Insights from a meta-analysis of recent economic studies. Ecological Economics, 99, 29-39.
Calel, R., & Dechezleprêtre, A. (2016). Environmental policy and directed technological change: evidence from the European carbon market. Review of economics and statistics, 98(1), 173-191.
Cantone, B., Evans, D., & Reeson, A. (2023). The effect of carbon price on low carbon innovation. Scientific Reports, 13(1), 9525.
Cariou, P., Lindstad, E., & Jia, H. (2021). The impact of an EU maritime emissions trading system on oil trades. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 99, 102992.
CemNet.com. (2024, 2024-12-24). Taiwan Cement Corporation targets EUR1.4bn investment in Portugal by 2030. International Cement Review. Retrieved 2025-07-04 from https://www.cemnet.com/News/story/178365/taiwan-cement-corporation-targets-eur1-4bn-investment-in-portugal-by-2030.html
Chomachaei, F. R., & Golmohammadi, D. (2025). The impact of a carbon tax on financial performance and innovation performance: an empirical study of the automotive industry. Environmental Economics and Policy Studies, 27(1), 61-84.
Christensen, C. M., & Rosenbloom, R. S. (1995). Explaining the attacker's advantage: Technological paradigms, organizational dynamics, and the value network. Research policy, 24(2), 233-257.
CIMPOR PORTUGAL CABO VERDE, S., SA. (2021). CIMPOR Integrated Report 2020. S. CIMPOR PORTUGAL CABO VERDE, SA. https://www.cimpor.com/documents/20124/461309/CIMPOR_Integrated_Report_2020_EN_PRINT_compressed.pdf/7086e865-0a3d-a26e-f6fb-3b139923fc4f?t=1662746855867
Convery, F. J. (2009). Origins and development of the EU ETS. Environmental and resource economics, 43, 391-412.
Dahlmann, F., Branicki, L., & Brammer, S. (2019). Managing carbon aspirations: The influence of corporate climate change targets on environmental performance. Journal of business ethics, 158, 1-24.
del Río González, P. (2009). The empirical analysis of the determinants for environmental technological change: A research agenda. Ecological Economics, 68(3), 861-878.
Del Río, P., Morán, M. Á. T., & Albiñana, F. C. (2011). Analysing the determinants of environmental technology investments. A panel-data study of Spanish industrial sectors. Journal of Cleaner Production, 19(11), 1170-1179.
Downing, P. B., & White, L. J. (1986). Innovation in pollution control. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 13(1), 18-29.
Dyer Jr, W. G., & Wilkins, A. L. (1991). Better stories, not better constructs, to generate better theory: A rejoinder to Eisenhardt. Academy of management review, 16(3), 613-619.
Gagelmann, F., & Frondel, M. (2005). The impact of emission trading on innovation–science fiction or reality? European Environment, 15(4), 203-211.
Gerlagh, R., Kverndokk, S., & Rosendahl, K. E. (2009). Optimal timing of climate change policy: Interaction between carbon taxes and innovation externalities. Environmental and resource economics, 43, 369-390.
Gillingham, K., & Sweeney, J. (2012). Barriers to implementing low-carbon technologies. Climate Change Economics, 3(04), 1250019.
Gollop, F. M., & Roberts, M. J. (1983). Environmental regulations and productivity growth: The case of fossil-fueled electric power generation. Journal of political Economy, 91(4), 654-674.
Grubb, M., & Neuhoff, K. (2006). Allocation and competitiveness in the EU emissions trading scheme: policy overview. Climate Policy, 6(1), 7-30.
Guan, H., Zhang, Y., & Zhao, A. (2023). Environmental taxes, enterprise innovation, and environmental total factor productivity—effect test based on Porter’s hypothesis. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 30(44), 99885-99899.
Guo, X., Fu, L., & Sun, X. (2021). Can environmental regulations promote greenhouse gas abatement in OECD countries? Command-and-control vs. market-based policies. Sustainability, 13(12), 6913.
Hoffmann, V. H. (2007). Eu ets and investment decisions:: The case of the german electricity industry. European Management Journal, 25(6), 464-474.
Huang, Y.-H., Chang, Y.-L., & Fleiter, T. (2016). A critical analysis of energy efficiency improvement potentials in Taiwan's cement industry. Energy policy, 96, 14-26.
IPCC, 2023: Summary for Policymakers. In: Climate Change 2023: Synthesis Report. Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Core Writing Team, H. Lee and J. Romero (eds.)]. IPCC, Geneva, Switzerland, pp. 1-34, doi: 10.59327/IPCC/AR6-9789291691647.001
Jaffe, A. B., & Palmer, K. (1997). Environmental regulation and innovation: a panel data study. Review of economics and statistics, 79(4), 610-619.
Jaffe, A. B., Peterson, S. R., Portney, P. R., & Stavins, R. N. (1995). Environmental regulation and the competitiveness of US manufacturing: what does the evidence tell us? Journal of Economic literature, 33(1), 132-163.
Joltreau, E., & Sommerfeld, K. (2019). Why does emissions trading under the EU Emissions Trading System (ETS) not affect firms’ competitiveness? Empirical findings from the literature. Climate Policy, 19(4), 453-471.
Jung, S., & Kwak, G. (2018). Firm characteristics, uncertainty and research and development (R&D) investment: The role of size and innovation capacity. Sustainability, 10(5), 1668.
Kaplan, S., & Tripsas, M. (2008). Thinking about technology: Applying a cognitive lens to technical change. Research policy, 37(5), 790-805.
Kemp, R., & Pontoglio, S. (2011). The innovation effects of environmental policy instruments—A typical case of the blind men and the elephant? Ecological Economics, 72, 28-36.
Klimko, R., & Hasprová, S. (2025). The impact of the EU ETS on greenhouse gas emissions in the EU from 2005 to 2022. Ekonomia i Środowisko(1 [92]).
Köppl, A., & Schratzenstaller, M. (2021). Effects of environmental and carbon taxation: a literature review.
Kuo, T. C., Hong, I.-H., & Lin, S. C. (2016). Do carbon taxes work? Analysis of government policies and enterprise strategies in equilibrium. Journal of Cleaner Production, 139, 337-346.
Lai, X., Liu, J., Shi, Q., Georgiev, G., & Wu, G. (2017). Driving forces for low carbon technology innovation in the building industry: A critical review. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 74, 299-315.
Laing, T., Sato, M., Grubb, M., & Comberti, C. (2014). The effects and side‐effects of the EU emissions trading scheme. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change, 5(4), 509-519.
Lakshman, M., Sinha, L., Biswas, M., Charles, M., & Arora, N. K. (2000). Quantitative vs qualitative research methods. The Indian Journal of Pediatrics, 67, 369-377.
Lanoie, P., Laurent‐Lucchetti, J., Johnstone, N., & Ambec, S. (2011). Environmental policy, innovation and performance: new insights on the Porter hypothesis. Journal of economics & management strategy, 20(3), 803-842.
Laudien, S. M., & Daxböck, B. (2016). Path dependence as a barrier to business model change in manufacturing firms: insights from a multiple-case study. Journal of Business Economics, 86, 611-645.
Li, F., Li, J., & Wang, D. (2024). Policy instruments and green innovation: Evidence and implications for corporate performance. Journal of Cleaner Production, 143443.
Li, X., Du, K., Ouyang, X., & Liu, L. (2022). Does more stringent environmental regulation induce firms' innovation? Evidence from the 11th Five-year plan in China. Energy Economics, 112, 106110.
Lilliestam, J., Patt, A., & Bersalli, G. (2021). The effect of carbon pricing on technological change for full energy decarbonization: A review of empirical ex‐post evidence. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change, 12(1), e681.
Lin, W., Chen, J., Zheng, Y., & Dai, Y. (2019). Effects of the EU Emission Trading Scheme on the international competitiveness of pulp-and-paper industry. Forest Policy and Economics, 109, 102021.
Liu, B., Cifuentes-Faura, J., Ding, C. J., & Liu, X. (2023). Toward carbon neutrality: how will environmental regulatory policies affect corporate green innovation? Economic Analysis and Policy, 80, 1006-1020.
Lundgren, A. (1991). Technological innovation and industrial evolution. The Emergence of.
Lundvall, B.-A. (1985). Product innovation and user-producer interaction. The Learning Economy and the Economics of Hope, 19(2), 19-60.
Mabon, L., & Littlecott, C. (2016). Stakeholder and public perceptions of CO2-EOR in the context of CCS–results from UK focus groups and implications for policy. International journal of greenhouse gas control, 49, 128-137.
Magacho, G., Espagne, E., & Godin, A. (2024). Impacts of the CBAM on EU trade partners: consequences for developing countries. Climate Policy, 24(2), 243-259.
Magnusson, T., & Werner, V. (2023). Conceptualisations of incumbent firms in sustainability transitions: Insights from organisation theory and a systematic literature review. Business Strategy and the Environment, 32(2), 903-919.
Mandaroux, R., Schindelhauer, K., & Mama, H. B. (2023). How to reinforce the effectiveness of the EU emissions trading system in stimulating low-carbon technological change? Taking stock and future directions. Energy policy, 181, 113697.
Manual, O. (2005). Guidelines for collecting and interpreting innovation data. In: oecd Paris, France:.
Meltzer, J. (2014). A carbon tax as a driver of green technology innovation and the implications for international trade. Energy LJ, 35, 45.
Morozov, V. S., & Taskaeva, N. N. (2016). Basic market factors affecting innovative activities. Journal of Internet Banking and Commerce, 21(S4), 1.
Mukherji, A. (2023). Climate Change 2023 Synthesis Report.
Naqi, A., & Jang, J. G. (2019). Recent progress in green cement technology utilizing low-carbon emission fuels and raw materials: A review. Sustainability, 11(2), 537.
Narassimhan, E., Gallagher, K. S., Koester, S., & Alejo, J. R. (2018). Carbon pricing in practice: A review of existing emissions trading systems. Climate Policy, 18(8), 967-991.
Nelson, R. R., & Winter, S. G. (1985). An evolutionary theory of economic change. harvard university press.
Oltra, V. (2008). Environmental innovation and industrial dynamics: the contributions of evolutionary economics. Cahiers du GREThA, 28(27), 77-89.
Oppelt, P. (2024). The effect of carbon taxes on directed technological innovation: A case study of Sweden. Junior Management Science (JUMS), 9(1), 1286-1305.
Popp, D. (2019). Environmental policy and innovation: a decade of research.
Porter, M. (1996). America’s green strategy. Business and the environment: a reader, 33, 1072.
Porter, M. E., & Linde, C. v. d. (1995). Toward a new conception of the environment-competitiveness relationship. Journal of economic perspectives, 9(4), 97-118.
Rogge, K. S. (2016). Reviewing the evidence on the innovation impact of the EU emission trading system. Edward Elgar Publishing.
Rogge, K. S., Schneider, M., & Hoffmann, V. H. (2011). The innovation impact of the EU Emission Trading System—Findings of company case studies in the German power sector. Ecological Economics, 70(3), 513-523.
Rubashkina, Y., Galeotti, M., & Verdolini, E. (2015). Environmental regulation and competitiveness: Empirical evidence on the Porter Hypothesis from European manufacturing sectors. Energy policy, 83, 288-300.
Ruttan, V. W. (1997). Induced innovation, evolutionary theory and path dependence: sources of technical change. The Economic Journal, 107(444), 1520-1529.
Scotti, F., Flori, A., Crescenzi, R., & Pammolli, F. (2025). Demand-pull and technology-push environmental innovation: A policy mix analysis on EU ETS and EU cohesion policy. Climate Policy, 25(2), 153-170.
Stenqvist, C., & Åhman, M. (2016). Free allocation in the 3rd EU ETS period: Assessing two manufacturing sectors. Climate Policy, 16(2), 125-144.
Sydow, J., Schreyögg, G., & Koch, J. (2009). Organizational path dependence: Opening the black box. Academy of management review, 34(4), 689-709.
Truffer, B., & Coenen, L. (2012). Environmental innovation and sustainability transitions in regional studies. Regional studies, 46(1), 1-21.
Wainstein, M. E., & Bumpus, A. G. (2016). Business models as drivers of the low carbon power system transition: a multi-level perspective. Journal of Cleaner Production, 126, 572-585.
Wang, Y., Yi, H., Tang, X., Wang, Y., An, H., & Liu, J. (2023). Historical trend and decarbonization pathway of China's cement industry: A literature review. Science of The Total Environment, 891, 164580.
Wara, M. (2014). Instrument choice, carbon emissions, and information. Mich. J. Envtl. & Admin. L., 4, 261.
Wei, Y., Zhu, R., & Tan, L. (2022). Emission trading scheme, technological innovation, and competitiveness: evidence from China's thermal power enterprises. Journal of Environmental Management, 320, 115874.
Weick, K. E. (2015). The social psychology of organizing. M@ n@ gement, 18(2), 189.
Witte, K. (2021). Social acceptance of carbon capture and storage (CCS) from industrial applications. Sustainability, 13(21), 12278.
Yin, R. K. (2009). Case study research: Design and methods (Vol. 5). sage.
Yu, X., Xu, Y., Zhang, J., & Sun, Y. (2022). The synergy green innovation effect of green innovation subsidies and carbon taxes. Sustainability, 14(6), 3453.
Zhang, S., Yu, Y., Zhu, Q., Qiu, C. M., & Tian, A. (2020). Green innovation mode under carbon tax and innovation subsidy: An evolutionary game analysis for portfolio policies. Sustainability, 12(4), 1385.
Zhang, Z., & Baranzini, A. (2004). What do we know about carbon taxes? An inquiry into their impacts on competitiveness and distribution of income. Energy policy, 32(4), 507-518.
Zhao, A., Wang, J., Sun, Z., & Guan, H. (2022). Environmental taxes, technology innovation quality and firm performance in China—A test of effects based on the Porter hypothesis. Economic Analysis and Policy, 74, 309-325. |
| Description: | 碩士
國立政治大學
科技管理與智慧財產研究所
112364124 |
| Source URI: | http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0112364124 |
| Data Type: | thesis |
| Appears in Collections: | [科技管理與智慧財產研究所] 學位論文
|
All items in 政大典藏 are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved.
|
