Refine
Year of Publication
Document Type
- Peer-Reviewed Article (23) (remove)
Language
- English (23) (remove)
Division
The contribution of natural resources and ecosystems to economic processes still remains under-assessed by market evaluation and productivity analysis. Following the historical lines of the classical productivity debate ranging from the French Physiocrats to early neoclassical growth theories, the productivity concept underwent a gradual transformation from its previous understanding based on natural resources and other environmental factors to its contemporary narrow notion. This paper claims that the course of the classical debate has shaped the scope of predominant contemporary analysis. Except for some very recent findings, multifactor productivity largely focusses on a two-factor model. Material Flow Analysis (MFA) provides a useful step for widening the measurement and notion of productivity.
The paper sketches out a theoretical framework for analysing the interplay between eco-efficiency, cognition and institutions. It derives from analytical shortfalls of the prevailing literature, which features strongly engineering and business economics, by using insights from New Institutional Economics, from Cognitive Science and, partly, from Evolutionary Economics. It emphasises the role cognition and institutions play in the adoption of "green" technologies by firms. A cognitive perspective derives from recent research on simple heuristics and context-based rationality; it is proposed that those findings can serve to analyse decision-making of individual actors respectively firms and, thus, should complement economic analysis. A second proposition is that eco-efficiency and normative rules such as a Factor Four strongly rely upon institutions, i.e. the ability of institutions to evolve over time and the development of those institutions that are most appropriate to enhance technological change. In this regard, business institutions and competition are crucial, but regulatory needs remain in order to safeguard continuity of knowledge creation. The framework allows for an analysis why overall adoption of eco-efficiency still can be considered relatively slow and why some markets and firms are far ahead. As a brief case study the article reflects upon German waste law's ability to enhance eco-efficiency.
This article proposes a policy framework for analysing corporate governance toward sustainable development. The aim is to set up a framework for analysing market evolution toward sustainability. In the first section, the paper briefly refers to recent theories about both market and government failures that express scepticism about the way that framework conditions for market actors are set. For this reason, multi-layered governance structures seem advantageous if new solutions are to be developed in policy areas concerned with long-term change and stepwise internalisation of externalities. The paper introduces the principle of regulated self-regulation. With regard to corporate actors| interests, it presents recent insights from theories about the knowledge-based firm, where the creation of new knowledge is based on the absorption of societal views. The result is greater scope for the endogenous internalisation of externalities, which leads to a variety of new and different corporate strategies. Because governance has to set incentives for quite a diverse set of actors in their daily operations, the paper finally discusses innovation-inducing regulation. In both areas, regulated self-regulation and innovation-inducing regulation, corporate and political governance co-evolve. The paper concludes that these co-evolutionary mechanisms may assume some of the stabilising and orientating functions previously exercised by framing activities of the state. In such a view, the government's main function is to facilitate learning processes, thus departing from the state's function as known from welfare economics.
This article introduces elements of a global governance regime for sustainable resource management. It argues that such an approach is needed to combat the negative impacts arising from resource extraction and use as well as to overcome the co‐ordination problems of decentralized action. A first section summarizes main conflicts arising from limited access to natural resources and security of supply, environmental impacts and the performance of resource‐rich developing countries. A second section analyses existing initiatives for sustainable resource management such as resource funds, efforts to increase transparency, programmes in development co‐operation, standards and certification, material efficiency and resource productivity as well as efforts to limit the consumption of natural resources. Though these initiative have their merits, the article concludes that more systematic institutional mechanisms are needed. The third section introduces those institutional mechanisms: it describes the International Panel for Sustainable Resource Management (launched in November 2007), outlines elements of an international convention on sustainable resource management, develops the agenda for an international agency on the issue and discusses the interaction with existing international bodies such as the World Trade Organization. Written as a policy paper, the paper formulates proposals for various actors, from small‐scale miners to large‐scale global companies and governments. Its intention is to stimulate the debate and to broaden the horizon on the global dimension of using minerals.
Approaches to address unsustainable ways of societal development constantly proliferate, but total consumption of resources and aggregate environmental impacts continue rising. This could partially be explained by weak attempts to develop comprehensive sustainability strategies that address the entire life cycle of products and especially resource extraction and use phases. This paper seeks to explore to what extent these life cycle stages and associated impacts are taken into account when various actors employ life cycle thinking and how these concerns can be better attended to in policy-making, business strategies and lifestyle choices. To accomplish this, we evaluate the efforts of the main stakeholders in reaching sustainable consumption and sustainable resource management, and impediments to further progress, and study whether and how deficits in these phases coincide and can potentially contribute to more holistic practical realization of life cycle thinking. We demonstrate that new approaches are needed to be able to tackle the international dimension of production and consumption.
This paper reviews the current EU policy framework in view of its impact on hydrogen and fuel cell development. It screens EU energy policies, EU regulatory policies and EU spending policies. Key questions addressed are as follows: to what extent is the current policy framework conducive to hydrogen and fuel cell development? What barriers and inconsistencies can be identified? How can policies potentially promote hydrogen and fuel cells in Europe, taking into account the complex evolution of such a potentially disruptive technology? How should the EU policy framework be reformed in view of a strengthened and more coherent approach towards full deployment, taking into account recent technology-support activities? This paper concludes that the current EU policy framework does not hinder hydrogen development. Yet it does not constitute a strong push factor either. EU energy policies have the strongest impact on hydrogen and fuel cell development even though their potential is still underexploited. Regulatory policies have a weak but positive impact on hydrogen. EU spending policies show some inconsistencies. However, the large-scale market development of hydrogen and fuel cells will require a new policy approach which comprises technology-specific support as well as a supportive policy framework with a special regional dimension.
The paper aims to shed light on the methodological challenges of GHG monitoring at local level and to give an overview on current practices. Questions addressed are as follows: How do the methodologies which underlie different GHG inventory tools differ? What are the critical variables explaining differences between inventories? Can different GHG inventory tools be compatible - and/or interoperable - and under which conditions? The first section discusses methodological challenges related to the formation of local GHG inventories. Rather than giving a comprehensive overview on methodological problems, this section mainly highlights some of the central methodological challenges posed by local GHG inventories. This overview identifies critical variables and clarifies concepts that are necessary for the understanding of the subsequent analysis. In section two, some of the most advanced GHG inventory tools are analysed and the most important differences between these tools are highlighted. The paper concludes that the methodologies are not consistent. Local GHG inventories can thus hardly be compared. The paper gives research and policy recommendations towards greater comparability and sketches the requirements of an international protocol on urban GHG inventories.
This paper undertakes a step to explaining the international economics of resource productivity. It argues that natural resources are back on the agenda for four reasons: the demand on world markets continues to increase, the environmental constraints to using resources are relevant throughout their whole life cycle, the access to critical metals could become a barrier to the low carbon economy, and uneven patterns of use will probably become a source of resource conflicts. Thus, the issue is also of relevance for the transition to a low carbon economy. "Material Flow Analysis" is introduced as a tool to measure the use of natural resources within economies and internationally; such measurement methodology now is being harmonized under OECD auspices. For these reasons, the paper argues that resource productivity - that is the efficiency of using natural resources to produce goods and services in the economy - will become one of the key determinants of economic success and human well-being. An empirical chapter gives evidence on time series of resource productivity increases across a number of economies. Introducing the notion of "material flow innovation", the paper also discusses the innovation dynamics and issues of competitiveness. However, as the paper concludes, market barriers make a case for effective resource policies that should provide incentives for knowledge generation and get the prices right.