Research achievement 2021.1.14

Full list (as of Jan 14, 2021) (* click to expand)

1. Peer-reviewed papers

• Yagi, M. and Managi, S., “Global Supply Constraints from the 2008 and COVID-19 Crises,” Economic Analysis and Policy, vol.69, pp.514-528, 2021. doi: 10.1016/j.eap.2021.01.008

  Download

  Science Direct Researchmap
• Yagi, M. and Kokubu, K., “A Framework of Sustainable Consumption and Production from the Production Perspective: Application to Thailand and Vietnam,” Journal of Cleaner Production, vol.276, 124160. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.124160

  Download

  Science Direct MPRA [DiscussionPaper] Researchmap
• Yagi, M., Kagawa, S., Managi, S., Fujii, H., and Guan, D., “Supply Constraint from Earthquakes in Japan in Input-Output Analysis,” Risk Analysis, vol.40 (9), pp.1811-1830, 2020. doi: 10.1111/risa.13525

  Download

  Wiley Online Library MPRA [DiscussionPaper] Researchmap

  Abstract

  Disasters often cause exogenous flow damage (i.e., the [hypothetical] difference in economic scale with and without a disaster in a certain period) to production (“supply constraint”). However, input-output (IO) analysis (IOA) cannot usually consider it, because the Leontief quantity model (LQM) assumes that production is endogenous; the Ghosh quantity model (GQM) is considered implausible; and the Leontief price model (LPM) and the Ghosh price model (GPM) assume that quantity is fixed. This study proposes to consider a supply constraint in the LPM, introducing the price elasticity of demand. This study uses the loss of social surplus (SS) as a damage estimation because production (sales) is less informative as a damage index than profit (margin); that is, production can be any amount if without considering profit, and it does not tell exactly how much profit is lost for each supplier (upstream sector) and buyer (downstream sector). As a model application, this study examines Japan’s largest five earthquakes from 1995 to 2017 and the Great East Japan Earthquake (GEJE) in March 2011. The worst earthquake at the peak tends to increase price by 10-20% and decrease SS by 20-30%, when compared with the initial month’s prices/production. The worst damage tends to last eight months at most, accumulating 0.5-month-production damage (i.e., the sum of [hypothetical] differences in SS with and without an earthquake [for eight months] is 50% of the initial month production). Meanwhile, the GEJE in the five prefectures had cumulatively, a 25-month-production damage until the temporal recovery at the 37th month.

  References

  • Brown, J. J. (2015). Supply Chain Risk Management – The Complexities of Managing Risks in Complex Global Supply Chain. Thomson Reuters GRC01326/6-15. Retrieved from https://risk.thomsonreuters.com/content/dam/openweb/documents/pdf/risk/white-paper/supply-chain-risk-management-complexities-managing-risks-complex-global-supply-chains-white-paper.pdf (accessed Feb. 2018).
  • Cabinet Office, Government of Japan. (2018). National Accounts Calculation (GDP statistics) [Japanese]. Retrieved from http://www.esri.cao.go.jp/jp/sna/menu.html (accessed Aug 2018).
  • Chen, X. (1990). Input-Occupancy-Output Analysis and its Application in China, in: Chatterji, M., & Kuenne, R.E. (Eds.), Dynamics and Conflict in Regional Structural Change. Palgrave Macmillan UK, London, pp. 267–278. doi:10.1007/978-1-349-10636-3_16
  • Chen, X., Guo, J., & Yang, C. (2005). Extending the input–output model with assets. Economic Systems Research, 17(2), 211–225. doi:10.1080/09535310500115074
  • Crawford-Brown, D., Syddall, M., Guan, D., Hall, J., Li, J., Jenkins, K., & Beaven, R. (2013). Vulnerability of London’s Economy to Climate Change: Sensitivity to Production Loss. Journal of Environmental Protection, 04(06), 548–563. doi: 10.4236/jep.2013.46064
  • Davar, E. (1989). Input–Output and General Equilibrium. Economic Systems Research, 1(3), 331–344. doi: 10.1080/09535318900000022
  • Dietzenbacher, E. (1997). In Vindication of the Ghosh Model: A Reinterpretation as a Price Model. Journal of Regional Science, 37(4), 629–651. doi: 10.1111/0022-4146.00073
  • Galbusera, L., & Giannopoulos, G. (2018). On input-output economic models in disaster impact assessment. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 30(May), 186–198. doi: 10.1016/j.ijdrr.2018.04.030
  • Ghosh, A. (1958). Input-Output Approach in an Allocation System. Economica, 25(97), 58–64. doi: 10.2307/2550694
  • Gruver, G. W. (1989). On the plausibility of the supply-driven input-output model: A theoretical basis for input-coefficient change. Journal of Regional Science, 29(3), 441–450. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9787.1989.tb01389.x
  • Feng, K., Chapagain, A., Suh, S., Pfister, S., & Hubacek, K. (2011). Comparison of Bottom-Up and Top-Down Approaches to Calculating the Water Footprints of Nations. Economic Systems Research, 23(4), 371–385. doi: 10.1080/09535314.2011.638276
  • Haimes, Y. Y., & Jiang, P. (2001). Leontief-Based Model of Risk in Complex Interconnected Infrastructures. Journal of Infrastructure Systems, 7(1), 1–12. doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)1076-0342(2001)7:1(1)
  • Hallegatte, S. (2008). An Adaptive Regional Input-Output Model and its Application to the Assessment of the Economic Cost of Katrina. Risk Analysis, 28(3), 779–799. doi: 10.1111/j.1539-6924.2008.01046.x
  • Hasegawa, R., Kagawa, S., & Tsukui, M. (2015). Carbon footprint analysis through constructing a multi-region input–output table: a case study of Japan. Journal of Economic Structures, 4(5), 1–20. doi: 10.1186/s40008-015-0015-6
  • Hayashi, T. (2012). Japan’s Post-Disaster Economic Reconstruction: From Kobe to Tohoku. Asian Economic Journal, 26(3), 189–210. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8381.2012.02082.x
  • Hayes, G. P., Myers, E. K., Dewey, J. W., Briggs, R. W., Earle, P. S., Benz, H. M., Smoczyk, G. M., Flamme, H. E., Barnhart, W. D., Gold, R. D., & Furlong, K.P. (2017). Tectonic summaries of magnitude 7 and greater earthquakes from 2000 to 2015: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2016–1192, 1–148. doi:10.3133/ofr20161192
  • Hoekstra, A. Y., & Wiedmann, T. O. (2014). Humanity’s unsustainable environmental footprint. Science, 344(6188), 1114–1117. doi: 10.1126/science.1248365
  • Hyogo prefecture. (2017). Hyogo prefecture statistics in 1995: Chapters 6 to 10 [Japanese]. Retrieved from https://web.pref.hyogo.lg.jp/kk11/ac08_1_000000101.html (accessed Nov 2018).
  • Investigative Commission for Nankai Trough Earthquake Model. (2012). Distributions of Seismic Intensity and Tsunami Height from the Nankai Trough Earthquake: The First Phase Report. [Japanese]. Retrieved from http://www.bousai.go.jp/jishin/nankai/model/pdf/1st_report.pdf (accessed Feb. 2018).
  • Japan Meteorological Agency. (2018). Past destructive earthquakes: major destructive earthquakes occurred near Japan (since 1996) and past earthquake disasters (until 1995) [Japanese]. Retrieved from http://www.data.jma.go.jp/svd/eqev/data/higai/ (accessed Nov. 2018).
  • Kanemoto, K., Moran, D., & Hertwich, E. G. (2016). Mapping the Carbon Footprint of Nations. Environmental Science & Technology, 50(19), 10512–10517. doi: 10.1021/acs.est.6b03227
  • Kim, T. J., Ham, H., & Boyce, D. E. (2002). Economic impacts of transportation network changes: Implementation of a combined transportation network and input-output model. Papers in Regional Science, 81(2), 223–246. doi: 10.1007/s101100100101
  • Koks, E. E., Carrera, L., Jonkeren, O., Aerts, J. C. J. H., Husby, T. G., Thissen, M., Standardi, G., & Mysiak, J. (2016). Regional disaster impact analysis: comparing input–output and computable general equilibrium models. Natural Hazards and Earth System Sciences, 16(8), 1911–1924. doi: 10.5194/nhess-16-1911-2016
  • Kratena, K., Streicher, G., Temurshoev, U., Amores, A.F., Arto, I., Mongelli, I., Rueda-Cantuche, J.M., & Andreoni, V. (2013). FIDELIO 1: Fully Interregional Dynamic Econometric Long-term Input-Output Model for the EU27. JRC Scientific and Policy Reports, JRC 81864, Institute for Prospective Technology Studies. doi: 10.2791/17619
  • Kratena, K., Streicher, G., Salotti S., Sommer, M., & Valderas Jaramillo, J. (2017). FIDELIO 2: Overview and Theoretical Foundations of the Second Version of the Fully Interregional Dynamic Econometric Long-term Input-Output Model for the EU27. JRC Scientific and Policy Reports, JRC 105900, Institute for Prospective Technology Studies. doi: 10.2760/313390
  • Kratena, K., & Streicher, G. (2017). Fiscal Policy Multipliers and Spillovers in a Multi-Regional Macroeconomic Input-Output Model, Working Paper 17-001, Centre of Economic Scenario Analysis and Research. Retrieved from https://www.wifo.ac.at/wwa/pubid/60576 (accessed Mar. 2020).
  • Leontief, W. W. (1936). Quantitative Input and Output Relations in the Economic Systems of the United States. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 18(3), 105. doi: 10.2307/1927837
  • Li, J., Crawford-Brown, D., Syddall, M., & Guan, D. (2013). Modeling Imbalanced Economic Recovery Following a Natural Disaster Using Input-Output Analysis. Risk Analysis, 33(10), 1908–1923. doi: 10.1111/risa.12040
  • Managi, S., & Guan, D. (2017). Multiple disasters management: Lessons from the Fukushima triple events. Economic Analysis and Policy, 53, 114–122. doi: 10.1016/j.eap.2016.12.002
  • Ministry of Economy, Trade, and Industry, Japan. (2018). Regional indices of industrial production (IIP). Retrieved from http://www.meti.go.jp/statistics/tyo/iip/chiiki/index.html (accessed Aug 2018).
  • Miller, R. E., & Blair, P. D. (2009). Input-Output Analysis: Foundations and Extensions. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
  • Mital, M., Del Giudice, M., & Papa, A. (2018). Comparing supply chain risks for multiple product categories with cognitive mapping and Analytic Hierarchy Process. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 131(May), 159–170. doi: 10.1016/j.techfore.2017.05.036
  • Okuyama, Y. (2007). Economic Modeling for Disaster Impact Analysis: Past, Present, and Future. Economic Systems Research, 19(2), 115–124. doi: 10.1080/09535310701328435
  • Okuyama, Y., Hewings, G.J.D., & Sonis, M., (2004). Measuring Economic Impacts of Disasters: Interregional Input-Output Analysis Using Sequential Interindustry Model, in: Okuyama, Y., Chang, S.E. (Eds.), Advances in Spatial Science. Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg, 77–101. doi:10.1007/978-3-540-24787-6_5
  • Oosterhaven, J. (1988). On the Plausibility of the Supply‐Driven Input‐Output Model. Journal of Regional Science, 28(2), 203–217. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9787.1988.tb01208.x
  • Oosterhaven, J. (1989). The supply-driven input-output model: A new interpretation but still implausible. Journal of Regional Science, 29(3), 459–465. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9787.1989.tb01391.x
  • Oosterhaven, J. (1996). Leontief versus Ghoshian Price and Quantity Models. Southern Economic Journal, 62(3), 750. doi: 10.2307/1060892
  • Oosterhaven, J. (2012). Adding Supply-Driven Consumption Makes the Ghosh Model Even More Implausible. Economic Systems Research, 24(1), 101–111. doi: 10.1080/09535314.2011.635137
  • Oosterhaven, J. (2017). On the limited usability of the inoperability IO model. Economic Systems Research, 29(3), 452–461. doi: 10.1080/09535314.2017.1301395
  • Oosterhaven, J., & Hewings, G. J. D. (2014). Interregional Input–Output Models. In Handbook of Regional Science (pp. 875–901). Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer Berlin Heidelberg. doi: 10.1007/978-3-642-23430-9_43
  • Park, J. Y. (2007). The Supply-Driven Input-Output Model: A Reinterpretation and Extension. Paper presented at the Western Regional Science Association 46th Annual Meeting, Newport Beach, CA, USA. Retrieved from http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=10.1.1.79.1953 (accessed Jul. 2019).
  • Park, J. Y. (2009). Application of a Price-Sensitive Supply-Side Input-Output Model to an Examination of the Economic Impacts: The Hurricane Katrina and Rita Disruptions of the U.S. Oil-Industry. Paper presented at 2009 Upstate New York of Society Chapter for Risk Analysis Symposium. http://create.usc.edu/research/publications/413 (accessed Mar. 2020).
  • Research Institute of Economy, Trade and Industry, Japan. (2019). Japan Industrial Productivity Database 2018 (JIP Database 2018). Retrieved from https://www.rieti.go.jp/en/database/JIP2018/index.html (accessed Jul. 2019).
  • Romanoff, E., (1984). Interindustry analysis for regional growth and development: The dynamics of manpower issues. Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, 18(5), 353–363. doi:10.1016/0038-0121(84)90043-0
  • Rose, A., & Allison, T. (1989). On the plausibility of the supply-driven input-output model: Empirical evidence on joint stability. Journal of Regional Science, 29(3), 451–458. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9787.1989.tb01390.x
  • Santos, J. R. (2006). Inoperability input-output modeling of disruptions to interdependent economic systems. Systems Engineering, 9(1), 20–34. doi: 10.1002/sys.20040
  • Savits, E. (2012). Managing the Risks of a Globalized Supply Chain. Forbes. Retrieved from https://www.forbes.com/sites/ciocentral/2012/10/04/managing-the-risks-of-a-globalized-supply-chain/#30d958dd39d8 (accessed Feb. 2018).
  • Shimoda, M., & Fujikawa, K. (2012). Input Output Analysis Model and Supply Constraint by the Great East Japan Earthquake. Input-Output Analysis, 20(2), 133–146 [Japanese]. doi: 10.11107/papaios.20.133
  • Sohn, J., Hewings, G.J.D., Kim, T.J., Lee, J.S., & Jang, S.-G. (2004). Analysis of Economic Impacts of an Earthquake on Transportation Network, in: Okuyama, Y., & Chang, S.E. (Eds.), Advances in Spatial Science. Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg, 233–256. doi:10.1007/978-3-540-24787-6_12
  • Statistics division of the Niigata prefecture. (2018). Indices of industrial production (IIP) [Japanese]. Retrieved from http://www.pref.niigata.lg.jp/tokei/1279580485252.html (accessed Nov 2018).
  • Steenge, A. E., & Bočkarjova, M. (2007). Thinking about Imbalances in Post-catastrophe Economies: An Input–Output based Proposition. Economic Systems Research, 19(2), 205–223. doi: 10.1080/09535310701330308
  • Toyoda, T., & Kouchi, A. (1997). Estimation of Economic Damages in the Industrial Sector by the Great Hanshin-Awaji Earthquake. the Kokumin-keizai Zasshi 176, 1–15 [Japanese]. Retrieved from http://www.lib.kobe-u.ac.jp/handle_kernel/00176174
  • Weinzettel, J., Hertwich, E. G., Peters, G. P., Steen-Olsen, K., & Galli, A. (2013). Affluence drives the global displacement of land use. Global Environmental Change, 23(2), 433–438. doi: 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2012.12.010
  • Wiedmann, T. O., Schandl, H., Lenzen, M., Moran, D., Suh, S., West, J., & Kanemoto, K. (2015). The material footprint of nations. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 112(20), 6271–6276. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1220362110
  • Wilting, H. C., Schipper, A. M., Bakkenes, M., Meijer, J. R., & Huijbregts, M. A. J. (2017). Quantifying Biodiversity Losses Due to Human Consumption: A Global-Scale Footprint Analysis. Environmental Science & Technology, 51(6), 3298–3306. doi: 10.1021/acs.est.6b05296
  • Working Group on Countermeasures to the Nankai Trough Earthquake. (2012). Damage Estimates from the Nankai Trough Earthquake: The First Phase Report [Japanese]. Retrieved from http://www.bousai.go.jp/jishin/nankai/taisaku_wg/pdf/20120829_higai.pdf (accessed Feb. 2018).

  </div>
  

• Yagi, M. and Kokubu, K., “Waste Decomposition Analysis in Japanese manufacturing sectors for Material Flow Cost Accounting,” Journal of Cleaner Production, vol.224, pp.823-837, 2019. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.03.196

  Download

  ScienceDirect.com MPRA [DiscussionPaper] Researchmap

  Abstract

  From the perspective of material flow cost accounting (MFCA), which treats both material and financial flows within a company, this study proposes a corporate waste decomposition model to investigate the effects of material and financial factors on corporate waste generation. The proposed model decomposes waste into the material loss (waste ratio of raw materials [WRMat]), raw material-to-cost ratio (RtCR; material use efficiency), cost-to-sales ratio (or COGSR), total asset turnover ratio (TATR), leverage, and total equity. As an application, the waste decomposition analysis is performed using the log-mean Divisia index (LMDI) method, and 125 listed firms in 5 Japanese manufacturing sectors from 2010 to 2015 are analyzed. The LMDI results show that the RtCR, the most crucial term in MFCA, had the largest effect on increases in waste generation as of 2015; however, this effect is not so robust among sectors over the years, implying that MFCA is valid mainly for specific companies/sectors or years. Also, corporate environmental burdens (waste and carbon emission) are likely to be correlated negatively with leverage and positively with total equity in the models, implying that the financial and stock markets have an essential role in deciding corporate environmental burdens.

  References

  • Ambec, S., Lanoie, P., 2008. Does It Pay to Be Green? A Systematic Overview. Academy of Management Perspectives 22, 45–62. doi:10.5465/amp.2008.35590353
  • Ang, B.W., Zhang, F.Q., 2000. A survey of index decomposition analysis in energy and environmental studies. Energy 25, 1149–1176. doi:10.1016/S0360-5442(00)00039-6
  • Ang, B.W., 2004. Decomposition analysis for policymaking in energy: Energy Policy 32, 1131–1139. doi:10.1016/S0301-4215(03)00076-4
  • Ang, B.W., 2015. LMDI decomposition approach: A guide for implementation. Energy Policy 86, 233–238. doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2015.07.007
  • Asian Productivity Organization (APO), 2012. Annual Report 2012. http://www.apo-tokyo.org/publications/ebooks/annual-report-2012/ [accessed Mar. 2018].
  • Bautista-Lazo, S., Short, T., 2013. Introducing the All Seeing Eye of Business: A model for understanding the nature, impact and potential uses of waste. Journal of Cleaner Production 40, 141–150. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2012.09.011
  • Bierer, A., Götze, U., Meynerts, L., Sygulla, R., 2015. Integrating life cycle costing and life cycle assessment using extended material flow cost accounting. Journal of Cleaner Production 108, 1289–1301. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.08.036
  • Busch, T., Lewandowski, S., 2017. Corporate Carbon and Financial Performance: A Meta-analysis. Journal of Industrial Ecology 0, 1–15. doi:10.1111/jiec.12591
  • Cansino, J.M., Sánchez-braza, A., Rodríguez-arévalo, M.L., 2015. Driving forces of Spain’s CO2 emissions: A LMDI decomposition approach. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 48, 749–759. doi:10.1016/j.rser.2015.04.011
  • Chompu-Inwai, R., Jaimjit, B., Premsuriyanunt, P., 2015. A combination of Material Flow Cost Accounting and design of experiments techniques in an SME: The case of a wood products manufacturing company in northern Thailand. Journal of Cleaner Production 108, 1352–1364. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.08.039
  • Chong, C., Ma, L., Li, Z., Ni, W., Song, S., 2015. Logarithmic mean Divisia index (LMDI) decomposition of coal consumption in China based on the energy allocation diagram of coal flows. Energy 85, 366–378. doi:10.1016/j.energy.2015.03.100
  • Christ, K.L., Burritt, R.L., 2015. Material flow cost accounting: A review and agenda for future research. Journal of Cleaner Production 108, 1378–1389. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.09.005
  • Fakoya, M.B., Van Der Poll, H.M., 2013. Integrating ERP and MFCA systems for improved waste-reduction decisions in a brewery in South Africa. Journal of Cleaner Production 40, 136–140. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2012.09.013
  • Fujii, H., Managi, S., 2013. Decomposition of Toxic Chemical Substance Management in Three U.S. Manufacturing Sectors from 1991 to 2008. Journal of Industrial Ecology 17, 461–471. doi:10.1111/j.1530-9290.2012.00527.x
  • Guenther, E., Jasch, C., Schmidt, M., Wagner, B., Ilg, P., 2015. Material flow cost accounting - Looking back and ahead. Journal of Cleaner Production 108, 1249–1254. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.10.018
  • International Federation of Accountants (IFAC), 2005. International Guidance Document: Environmental Management Accounting. https://www.ifac.org/publications-resources/international-guidance-document-environmental-management-accounting [accessed May 2018].
  • ISO 14051, 2011. ISO 14051:2011(en) Environmental management — Material flow cost accounting — General framework. https://www.iso.org/obp/ui/#iso:std:iso:14051:ed-1:v1:en
  • ISO 14052, 2017. ISO 14052:2017(en) Environmental management — Material flow cost accounting — Guidance for practical implementation in a supply chain. https://www.iso.org/obp/ui/#iso:std:iso:14052:ed-1:v1:en
  • Jakrawatana, N., Pingmuangleka, P., Gheewala, S.H., 2016. Material flow management and cleaner production of cassava processing for future food, feed and fuel in Thailand. Journal of Cleaner Production 134, 633–641. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.06.139
  • Jasch, C., 2003. The use of Environmental Management Accounting (EMA) for identifying environmental costs. Journal of Cleaner Production 11, 667–676. doi:10.1016/S0959-6526(02)00107-5
  • Jasch, C., 2006. How to perform an environmental management cost assessment in one day. Journal of Cleaner Production 14, 1194–1213. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2005.08.005
  • Jasch, C., 2015. Governmental initiatives: The UNIDO (United Nations Industrial Development Organization) TEST approach. Journal of Cleaner Production 108, 1375–1377. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.10.019
  • Kasemset, C., Chernsupornchai, J., Pala-ud, W., 2013. Application of MFCA in waste reduction: Case study on a small textile factory in Thailand. Journal of Cleaner Production 108, 1342–1351. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.09.071
  • Kaya, Y., Yokobori, K., 1997. Environment, Energy, and Economy Strategies for Sustainability. Tokyo: United Nations University Press. < http://archive.unu.edu/unupress/unupbooks/uu17ee/uu17ee00.htm> [accessed Dec 2018]
  • Kitada, H., Kokubu, K., Gunther, E., Walz, M, Wu, Q., 2016, The effect of environmental management practices on MFCA adoption in Japan, Paper presented at 8th Asia-Pacific Interdisciplinary Research in Accounting Conference, RMIT University, Australia, 12-15 July, 2016.
  • Kokubu, K., Kitada, H., 2015. Material flow cost accounting and existing management perspectives. Journal of Cleaner Production 108, 1279–1288. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.08.037
  • Kokubu, K., Nakajima, M., 2018. Theory and Practice of Material Flow Cost Accounting. Tokyo: Dobunkan Shuppan. Co. Ltd. [Japanese].
  • Kurdve, M., Shahbazi, S., Wendin, M., Bengtsson, C., Wiktorsson, M., 2015. Waste flow mapping to improve sustainability of waste management: A case study approach. Journal of Cleaner Production 98, 304–315. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.06.076
  • Kwon, D.S., Cho, J.H., Sohn, S.Y., 2017. Comparison of technology efficiency for CO2 emissions reduction among European countries based on DEA with decomposed factors. Journal of Cleaner Production 151, 109–120. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.03.065
  • Lozano, S., Gutiérrez, E., 2008. Non-parametric frontier approach to modelling the relationships among population, GDP, energy consumption and CO2 emissions. Ecological Economics 66, 687–699. doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2007.11.003
  • Mahmoudi, E., Jodeiri, N., Fatehifar, E., 2017. Implementation of material flow cost accounting for efficiency improvement in wastewater treatment unit of Tabriz oil refining company. Journal of Cleaner Production 165, 530–536. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.07.137
  • Nakajima, M., Kimura, A., Wagner, B., 2013. Introduction of material flow cost accounting (MFCA) to the supply chain: A questionnaire study on the challenges of constructing a low-carbon supply chain to promote resource efficiency. Journal of Cleaner Production 108, 1302–1309. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.10.044
  • Nakano, K., Hirao, M., 2011. Collaborative activity with business partners for improvement of product environmental performance using LCA. Journal of Cleaner Production 19, 1189–1197. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2011.03.007
  • Rieckhof, R., Bergmann, A., Guenther, E., 2015. Interrelating material flow cost accounting with management control systems to introduce resource efficiency into strategy. Journal of Cleaner Production 108, 1262–1278. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.10.040
  • Schaltegger, S., Zvezdov, D., 2015. Expanding material flow cost accounting. Framework, review and potentials. Journal of Cleaner Production 108, 1333–1341. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.08.040
  • Schmidt, M., 2015. The interpretation and extension of Material Flow Cost Accounting (MFCA) in the context of environmental material flow analysis. Journal of Cleaner Production 108, 1310–1319. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.11.038
  • Schmidt, A., Götze, U., Sygulla, R., 2015. Extending the scope of Material Flow Cost Accounting - Methodical refinements and use case. Journal of Cleaner Production 108, 1320–1332. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.10.039
  • Sulong, F., Sulaiman, M., Norhayati, M.A., 2015. Material Flow Cost Accounting (MFCA) enablers and barriers: The case of a Malaysian small and medium-sized enterprise (SME). Journal of Cleaner Production 108, 1365–1374. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.08.038
  • United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), 2015. Sustainable Consumption and Production: A Handbook for Policy Makers (Global Edition). <https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/documents/1951Sustainable Consumption.pdf> [accessed Jul. 2017].
  • Wagner, B., 2015. A report on the origins of Material Flow Cost Accounting (MFCA) research activities. Journal of Cleaner Production 108, 1255–1261. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.10.020
  • Wan, Y.K., Ng, R.T.L., Ng, D.K.S., Tan, R.R., 2015. Material flow cost accounting (MFCA)-based approach for prioritisation of waste recovery. Journal of Cleaner Production 107, 602–614. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.05.024
  • Wang, W., Liu, X., Zhang, M., Song, X., 2014. Using a new generalized LMDI (logarithmic mean Divisia index) method to analyze China’s energy consumption. Energy 67, 617–622. doi:10.1016/j.energy.2013.12.064
  • Wang, Z., Feng, C., Chen, J., Huang, J., 2017. The driving forces of material use in China: An index decomposition analysis. Resources Policy 52, 336–348. doi:10.1016/j.resourpol.2017.04.011
  • Yagi, M., Kokubu, K., 2018. Corporate material flow management in Thailand: The way to material flow cost accounting. Journal of Cleaner Production 198, 763–775. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.07.007
  • Yagi, M., Managi, S., 2018. Decomposition analysis of corporate carbon dioxide and greenhouse gas emissions in Japan: Integrating corporate environmental and financial performances. Business Strategy and the Environment 27, 1476–1492. doi:10.1002/bse.2206
  • Zhou, Z., Zhao, W., Chen, X., Zeng, H., 2017. MFCA extension from a circular economy perspective: Model modifications and case study. Journal of Cleaner Production 149, 110–125. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.02.049

  </div>
  

• Yagi, M. and Managi, S., “Shadow price of patent stock as knowledge stock: time and country heterogeneity,” Economic Analysis and Policy, vol.60, pp.43-61, 2018. doi: 10.1016/j.eap.2018.09.001

  Download

  ScienceDirect.com MPRA [DiscussionPaper] Researchmap

  Abstract

  This study compares the shadow price (marginal cost) and shadow value (total cost) of patent stock (as knowledge stock) in each of 92 countries between 1992 and 2010. Two specifications are considered in the data envelopment analysis approach. One specification considers population, capital, patent stock, energy use (four inputs), greenhouse gas (undesirable output), and gross domestic product (desirable output). The other uses human capital and natural capital instead of population and energy use. Under these two specifications, respectively, the shadow price of the patent stock (on weighted average) for the whole period is −0.106 and −0.054 million US dollars per patent in the entire sample. Similarly, the shadow value of the patent stock (by the ratio of gross domestic product) in the entire sample is −5.8% and −2.9%, respectively. As the standing position of patent stock, the patent stock is less valuable than human capital and (produced) capital but more valuable than population, energy use, and natural capital. The patent stock also is likely to be valuable in developing countries. In addition, the shadow value of the patent stock is relatively high in certain large countries and nearly flat in most of the countries.

  References

  • Amess, K., Stiebale, J., Wright, M., 2016. The impact of private equity on firms׳ patenting activity. European Economic Review 86, 147–160. doi:10.1016/j.euroecorev.2015.08.013
  • Arrow, K.J., Dasgupta, P., Goulder, L.H., Mumford, K.J., Oleson, K., 2012. Sustainability and the measurement of wealth. Environment and Development Economics 17, 317–353. doi:10.1017/S1355770X12000137
  • Arrow, K.J., Dasgupta, P., Goulder, L.H., Mumford, K.J., Oleson, K., 2013. Sustainability and the measurement of wealth: further reflections. Environment and Development Economics 18, 504–516. doi:10.1017/S1355770X13000193
  • Balasubramanian, N., Sivadasan, J., 2011. What Happens When Firms Patent? New Evidence from U.S. Economic Census Data. Review of Economics and Statistics 93, 126–146. doi:10.1162/REST_a_00058
  • Benz, S., Larch, M., Zimmer, M., 2014. The structure of the German economy. Applied Economics 46, 3274–3283. doi:10.1080/00036846.2014.927568
  • Berbegal‐Mirabent, J., Sabaté, F., Cañabate, A., 2012. Brokering knowledge from universities to the marketplace. Management Decision 50, 1285–1307. doi:10.1108/00251741211247012
  • Bertoni, F., Tykvová, T., 2015. Does governmental venture capital spur invention and innovation? Evidence from young European biotech companies. Research Policy 44, 925–935. doi:10.1016/j.respol.2015.02.002
  • Blind, K., Jungmittag, A., 2008. The impact of patents and standards on macroeconomic growth: a panel approach covering four countries and 12 sectors. Journal of Productivity Analysis 29, 51–60. doi:10.1007/s11123-007-0060-8
  • Bottasso, A., Castagnetti, C., Conti, M., 2013. And yet they Co-move! Public capital and productivity in OECD. Journal of Policy Modeling 35, 713–729. doi:10.1016/j.jpolmod.2013.02.007
  • Bottazzi, L., Peri, G., 2007. The International Dynamics of R&D and Innovation in the Long Run and in The Short Run. The Economic Journal 117, 486–511. doi:10.1111/j.1468-0297.2007.02027.x
  • Charnes, A., Cooper, W.W., Rhodes, E., 1978. Measuring the efficiency of decision making units. European Journal of Operational Research 2, 429–444. doi:10.1016/0377-2217(78)90138-8
  • Chen, J.-R., Yang, C.-H., 2005. Technological knowledge, spillover and productivity: evidence from Taiwanese firm level panel data. Applied Economics 37, 2361–2371. doi:10.1080/00036840500309262
  • Chung, Y.H., Färe, R., Grosskopf, S., 1997. Productivity and Undesirable Outputs: A Directional Distance Function Approach. Journal of Environmental Management 51, 229–240. doi:10.1006/jema.1997.0146
  • Cohen, W.M., 2010. Fifty Years of Empirical Studies of Innovative Activity and Performance, in: Hall, B.H., Rosenberg, N. (Eds.), Handbook of the Economics of Innovation. Elsevier B.V., pp. 129–213. doi:10.1016/S0169-7218(10)01004-X
  • Collins, R.D., Selin, N.E., de Weck, O.L., Clark, W.C., 2017. Using inclusive wealth for policy evaluation: Application to electricity infrastructure planning in oil-exporting countries. Ecological Economics 133, 23–34. doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2016.11.013
  • Cook, W.D., Seiford, L.M., 2009. Data envelopment analysis (DEA) – Thirty years on. European Journal of Operational Research 192, 1–17. doi:10.1016/j.ejor.2008.01.032
  • Crespi, G., D’Este, P., Fontana, R., Geuna, A., 2011. The impact of academic patenting on university research and its transfer. Research Policy 40, 55–68. doi:10.1016/j.respol.2010.09.010
  • Czarnitzki, D., Kraft, K., 2010. On the profitability of innovative assets. Applied Economics 42, 1941–1953. doi:10.1080/00036840701749019
  • Desyllas, P., Hughes, A., 2009. The revealed preferences of high technology acquirers: An analysis of the innovation characteristics of their targets. Cambridge Journal of Economics 33, 1089–1111. doi:10.1093/cje/bep004
  • Emrouznejad, A., Yang, G., 2018. A survey and analysis of the first 40 years of scholarly literature in DEA: 1978–2016. Socio-Economic Planning Sciences 61, 4–8. doi:10.1016/j.seps.2017.01.008
  • Falagas, M.E., Kouranos, V.D., Arencibia-Jorge, R., Karageorgopoulos, D.E., 2008. Comparison of SCImago journal rank indicator with journal impact factor. The FASEB Journal 22, 2623–2628. doi:10.1096/fj.08-107938
  • Färe, R., Grosskopf, S., Tyteca, D., 1996. An activity analysis model of the environmental performance of firms—application to fossil-fuel-fired electric utilities. Ecological Economics 18, 161–175. doi:10.1016/0921-8009(96)00019-5
  • Fenichel, E.P., Abbott, J.K., Bayham, J., Boone, W., Haacker, E.M.K., Pfeiffer, L., 2016. Measuring the value of groundwater and other forms of natural capital. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 113, 2382–2387. doi:10.1073/pnas.1513779113
  • Fujii, H., Managi, S., 2016. Research and development strategy for environmental technology in Japan: A comparative study of the private and public sectors. Technological Forecasting and Social Change 112, 293–302. doi:10.1016/j.techfore.2016.02.012
  • Fujii, H., Managi, S., 2018. Trends and priority shifts in artificial intelligence technology invention: A global patent analysis. Economic Analysis and Policy 58, 60–69. doi:10.1016/j.eap.2017.12.006
  • Gera, S., Gu, W., Lin, Z., 2001. Technology and the demand for skills in Canada: an industry-level analysis. Canadian Journal of Economics/Revue Canadienne d`Economique 34, 132–148. doi:10.1111/0008-4085.00066
  • Ghadimi, H., Harris, T., Warner, T., 2015. A geospatial approach to measuring regional and sub-regional inclusive wealth: the case of resource rich West Virginia, USA. Regional Science Policy & Practice 7, 199–224. doi:10.1111/rsp3.12067
  • Griliches, Z., 1981. Market value, R&D, and patents. Economics Letters 7, 183–187. doi:10.1016/0165-1765(87)90114-5
  • Griliches, Z., 1990. Patent Statistics as Economic Indicators: A Survey, Journal of Economic Literature. Cambridge, MA. doi:10.3386/w3301
  • Grimpe, C., 2012. Extramural research grants and scientists’ funding strategies: Beggars cannot be choosers? Research Policy 41, 1448–1460. doi:10.1016/j.respol.2012.03.004
  • Hall, B.H., Jaffe, A., Trajtenberg, M., 2001. The NBER Patent Citation Data File: Lessons, Insights and Methodological Tools, NBER Working Paper 8498. Cambridge, MA. doi:10.3386/w8498
  • Hall, B.H., Jaffe, A., Trajtenberg, M., 2005. Market Value and Patent Citations. The RAND journal of economics 36, 16–38. http://www.jstor.org/stable/1593752
  • Ikeda, S., Tamaki, T., Nakamura, H., Managi, S., 2017. Inclusive wealth of regions: the case of Japan. Sustainability Science 12, 991–1006. doi:10.1007/s11625-017-0450-4
  • Jang, S.-L., Chen, J.H., 2011. What determines how long an innovative spell will last? Scientometrics 86, 65–76. doi:10.1007/s11192-010-0247-z
  • Johnstone, N., Managi, S., Rodríguez, M.C., Haščič, I., Fujii, H., Souchier, M., 2017. Environmental policy design, innovation and efficiency gains in electricity generation. Energy Economics 63, 106–115. doi:10.1016/j.eneco.2017.01.014
  • Kumar, S., Fujii, H., Managi, S., 2015. Substitute or complement? Assessing renewable and nonrenewable energy in OECD countries. Applied Economics 47, 1438–1459. doi:10.1080/00036846.2014.997922
  • Kuosmanen, T., 2005. Weak Disposability in Nonparametric Production Analysis with Undesirable Outputs. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 87, 1077–1082. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8276.2005.00788.x
  • Kuosmanen, T., Matin, R.K., 2011. Duality of weakly disposable technology. Omega 39, 504–512. doi:10.1016/j.omega.2010.10.008
  • Kurniawan, R., Managi, S., 2017. Sustainable Development and Performance Measurement: Global Productivity Decomposition. Sustainable Development 25, 639–654. doi:10.1002/sd.1684
  • Lach, S., 1995. Patents and productivity growth at the industry level: A first look. Economics Letters 49, 101–108. doi:10.1016/0165-1765(94)00618-C
  • Lee, J.-D., Park, J.-B., Kim, T.-Y., 2002. Estimation of the shadow prices of pollutants with production/environment inefficiency taken into account: a nonparametric directional distance function approach. Journal of Environmental Management 64, 365–375. doi:10.1006/jema.2001.0480
  • Leleu, H., 2013. Shadow pricing of undesirable outputs in nonparametric analysis. European Journal of Operational Research 231, 474–480. doi:10.1016/j.ejor.2013.05.028
  • Lin, C.-H., Jang, S.-L., 2010. The impact of M&As on company innovation: evidence from the US medical device industry. Scientometrics 84, 119–131. doi:10.1007/s11192-009-0096-9
  • Madsen, J.B., 2008. Economic Growth, TFP Convergence and the World Export of Ideas: A Century of Evidence. Scandinavian Journal of Economics 110, 145–167. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9442.2008.00530.x
  • Mahlich, J.C., 2010. Patents and performance in the Japanese pharmaceutical industry: An institution-based view. Asia Pacific Journal of Management 27, 99–113. doi:10.1007/s10490-008-9128-x
  • Mukherji, N., Silberman, J., 2011. Idea generation: the performance of U.S. States 1997–2007. The Journal of Technology Transfer 36, 417–447. doi:10.1007/s10961-010-9158-7
  • Park, G., Park, Y., 2006. On the measurement of patent stock as knowledge indicators. Technological Forecasting and Social Change 73, 793–812. doi:10.1016/j.techfore.2005.09.006
  • Roman, P., Thiry, G., 2016. The inclusive wealth index. A critical appraisal. Ecological Economics 124, 185–192. doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2015.12.008
  • UNU-IHDP and UNEP, 2012. Inclusive Wealth Report 2012 – Measuring Progress Toward Sustainability. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education 13. doi:10.1108/ijshe.2012.24913daa.006 http://inclusivewealthindex.org/
  • UNU-IHDP and UNEP, 2014. Inclusive Wealth Report 2014 Measuring progress toward sustainability, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. < http://inclusivewealthindex.org/>
  • van Zeebroeck, N., 2007. Patents only live twice: a patent survival analysis in Europe. Working Papers CEB No. 07-028.RS. Universite Libre de Bruxelles. < https://ideas.repec.org/p/sol/wpaper/07-028.html>
  • van Zeebroeck, N., 2011a. Long Live Patents: the Increasing Life Expectancy of Patent Applications and its Determinants. Review of Economics and Institutions 2, 37. doi:10.5202/rei.v2i3.41
  • van Zeebroeck, N., 2011b. The puzzle of patent value indicators. Economics of Innovation and New Technology 20, 33–62. doi:10.1080/10438590903038256
  • Vera, L., 2017. In search of stabilization and recovery: macro policy and reforms in Venezuela. Journal of Post Keynesian Economics 40, 9–26. doi:10.1080/01603477.2016.1273069
  • Schankerman, M., Pakes, A., 1986. Estimates of the Value of Patent Rights in European Countries During the Post-1950 Period. The Economic Journal 96, 1052. doi:10.2307/2233173
  • Schmoch, U., 2008. Concept of a technology classification for Country comparison. Final report to the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO). http://www.wipo.int/export/sites/www/ipstats/en/statistics/patents/pdf/wipo_ipc_technology.pdf
  • Schmoch, U., Schubert, T., Jansen, D., Heidler, R., von Görtz, R., 2010. How to use indicators to measure scientific performance: a balanced approach. Research Evaluation 19, 2–18. doi:10.3152/095820210X492477
  • Streb, J., Wallusch, J., Yin, S., 2007. Knowledge spill-over from new to old industries: The case of German synthetic dyes and textiles (1878–1913). Explorations in Economic History 44, 203–223. doi:10.1016/j.eeh.2005.11.002
  • Tamaki, T., Shin, K.J., Nakamura, H., Fujii, H., Managi, S., 2018. Shadow prices and production inefficiency of mineral resources. Economic Analysis and Policy 57, 111–121. doi:10.1016/j.eap.2017.03.005
  • Thompson, M.J., 2016. Measuring patent quality: A claim and search report approach. World Patent Information 45, 47–54. doi:10.1016/j.wpi.2016.03.003
  • Tyteca, D., 1996. On the Measurement of the Environmental Performance of Firms— A Literature Review and a Productive Efficiency Perspective. Journal of Environmental Management 46, 281–308. doi:10.1006/jema.1996.0022
  • Uehara, T., Mineo, K., 2017. Regional sustainability assessment framework for integrated coastal zone management: Satoumi, ecosystem services approach, and inclusive wealth. Ecological Indicators 73, 716–725. doi:10.1016/j.ecolind.2016.10.031
  • Walker, B., Pearson, L., Harris, M., Maler, K.-G., Li, C.-Z., Biggs, R., Baynes, T., 2010. Incorporating Resilience in the Assessment of Inclusive Wealth: An Example from South East Australia. Environmental and Resource Economics 45, 183–202. doi:10.1007/s10640-009-9311-7
  • Wang, B., Hsieh, C., 2015. Measuring the value of patents with fuzzy multiple criteria decision making: insight into the practices of the Industrial Technology Research Institute. Technological Forecasting and Social Change 92, 263–275. doi:10.1016/j.techfore.2014.09.015
  • Yagi, M., Fujii, H., Hoang, V., Managi, S., 2015. Environmental efficiency of energy, materials, and emissions. Journal of Environmental Management 161, 206–218. doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2015.06.054
  • Yamaguchi, R., 2014. Inclusive wealth with a changing but aging population. Economics Letters 124, 21–25. doi:10.1016/j.econlet.2014.04.011
  • Yueh, L., 2009. Patent laws and innovation in China. International Review of Law and Economics 29, 304–313. doi:10.1016/j.irle.2009.06.001
  • Zhou, P., Ang, B.W., Poh, K.L., 2008. A survey of data envelopment analysis in energy and environmental studies. European Journal of Operational Research 189, 1–18. doi:10.1016/j.ejor.2007.04.042
  • Zobel, A.-K., Balsmeier, B., Chesbrough, H., 2016. Does patenting help or hinder open innovation? Evidence from new entrants in the solar industry. Industrial and Corporate Change 25, 307–331. doi:10.1093/icc/dtw005

  </div>
  

• Xie, J., Nozawa, W., Yagi, M., Fujii, H., and Managi, S., “Do Environmental, Social and Governance Activities Improve Corporate Financial Performance?,” Business Strategy and the Environment, vol.28 (2), pp.286-300, 2019. doi: 10.1002/bse.2224

  Download

  Wiley Online Library MPRA [DiscussionPaper] Researchmap

  Abstract

  This study investigated the relationship between corporate efficiency and corporate sustainability to determine whether firms concerned about environmental, social, and governance (ESG) issues can also be efficient and profitable. We applied data envelopment analysis to estimate corporate efficiency and investigated the nonlinear relationship between corporate efficiency and ESG disclosure. Evidence shows that corporate transparency regarding ESG information has a positive association with corporate efficiency at the moderate disclosure level, rather than at the high or low disclosure level. Governance information disclosure has the strongest positive linkage with corporate efficiency, followed by social and environmental information disclosure. Moreover, we explored the relationship between particular ESG activities and corporate financial performance (CFP), including corporate efficiency, return on assets, and market value. We found that most of the ESG activities reveal a nonnegative relationship with CFP. These findings may provide evidence about voluntary corporate social responsibility strategy choices for enhancing corporate sustainability.

  References

  • Aerts W, Cormier D, Magnan M. 2008. Corporate environmental disclosure, financial markets and the media: An international perspective. Ecological Economics 64 : 643–659. DOI: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2007.04.012
  • Ambec S, Cohen MA, Elgie S, Lanoie P. 2013. The porter hypothesis at 20: Can environmental regulation enhance innovation and competitiveness? Review of Environmental Economics and Policy 7 : 2–22. DOI: 10.1093/reep/res016
  • Aouadi A, Marsat S. 2016. Do ESG Controversies Matter for Firm Value? Evidence from International Data. Journal of Business Ethics : 1–21. DOI: 10.1007/s10551-016-3213-8
  • Banker RD, Charnes A, Cooper WW. 1984. Some Models for Estimating Technical and Scale Inefficiencies in Data Envelopment Analysis. Management Science 30 : 1078–1092. DOI: 10.1287/mnsc.30.9.1078
  • Barnett ML, Salomon RM. 2006. Beyond dichotomy: The curvilinear relationship between social responsibility and financial performance. Strategic Management Journal 27 : 1101–1122. DOI: 10.1002/smj.557
  • Brammer S, Millington A. 2008. Does it pay to be different? An analysis of the relationship between corporate social and financial performance. Strategic Management Journal 29 : 1324–1343. DOI: 10.1002/smj.714
  • Brammer S, Pavelin S. 2008. Factors influencing the quality of corporate environmental disclosure. Business Strategy and the Environment 17 : 120–136. DOI: 10.1002/bse.506
  • Brockett A, Rezaee Z. 2012. Corporate sustainability: Integrating performance and reporting . John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.: New Jersey
  • Brower J, Rowe K. 2017. Where the eyes go, the body follows?: Understanding the impact of strategic orientation on corporate social performance. Journal of Business Research 79 : 134–142. DOI: 10.1016/J.JBUSRES.2017.06.004
  • Chandrashekar A, Dougless T, Avery GC. 1999. The environment is free: The quality analogy. Journal of Quality Management 4 : 123–143. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S1084-8568(99)80099-6
  • Clarkson PM, Li Y, Richardson GD, Vasvari FP. 2011. Does it really pay to be green? Determinants and consequences of proactive environmental strategies. Journal of Accounting and Public Policy 30 : 122–144. DOI: 10.1016/j.jaccpubpol.2010.09.013
  • COSO-WBCSD. 2018. Enterprise Risk Management. Applying enterprise risk management to environmental, social and governance-related risks, Retrieved from WBCSD website: http://docs.wbcsd.org/2018/02/COSO_WBCSD_ESGERM.pdf, Jun 12, 2018
  • Deng X, Kang J koo, Low BS. 2013. Corporate social responsibility and stakeholder value maximization: Evidence from mergers. Journal of Financial Economics 110 : 87–109. DOI: 10.1016/j.jfineco.2013.04.014
  • Dowell G, Hart S, Yeung B. 2000. Do Corporate Global Environmental Standards Create or Destroy Market Value? Management Science 46 : 1059–1074. DOI: 10.1287/mnsc.46.8.1059.12030
  • Eccles RG, Ioannou I, Serafeim G. 2014. The Impact of Corporate Sustainability on Organizational Processes and Performance. Management Science 60 : 2835–2857. DOI: 10.1287/mnsc.2014.1984
  • Eccles RG, Serafeim G, Krzus MP. 2011. Market Interest in Nonfinancial Information. Journal of Applied Corporate Finance 23 : 113–127. DOI: 10.1111/j.1745-6622.2011.00357.x
  • Eichholtz P, Kok N, Quigley JM. 2010. Doing well by doing good? Green office buildings. American Economic Review 100 : 2492–2509. DOI: 10.1257/aer.100.5.2492
  • Eichholtz P, Kok N, Quigley JM. 2013. The Economics of Green Building. Review of Economics and Statistics 95 : 50–63. DOI: 10.1162/REST_a_00291
  • Erhardt NL, Werbel JD, Shrader CB. 2003. Board of Director Diversity and Firm Financial Performance. Corporate Governance 11 : 102–111. DOI: 10.1111/1467-8683.00011
  • Esteban-Sanchez P, de la Cuesta-Gonzalez M, Paredes-Gazquez JD. 2017. Corporate social performance and its relation with corporate financial performance: International evidence in the banking industry. Journal of Cleaner Production 162 : 1102–1110. DOI: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.06.127
  • Fatemi A, Glaum M, Kaiser S. 2016. ESG performance and firm value: The moderating role of disclosure. Global Finance Journal DOI: 10.1016/j.gfj.2017.03.001
  • Ferrell A, Liang H, Renneboog L. 2016. Socially responsible firms. Journal of Financial Economics 122 : 585–606. DOI: 10.1016/j.jfineco.2015.12.003
  • Firth M, Wong SML, Yang Y. 2014. The double-edged sword of CEO/chairperson duality in corporatized state-owned firms: Evidence from top management turnover in China. Journal of Management and Governance 18 : 207–244. DOI: 10.1007/s10997-012-9225-6
  • Freeman E, McVea J. 2001. A Stakeholder Approach to Strategic Management. SSRN Electronic Journal 1 : 276. DOI: 10.2139/ssrn.263511
  • Friedman M. 1970. The Social Responsibility of Business Is to Increase Its Profits. Corporate Ethics and Corporate Governance 6 : 173–178. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-540-70818-6_14
  • Fujii H, Iwata K, Kaneko S, Managi S. 2013. Corporate Environmental and Economic Performance of Japanese Manufacturing Firms: Empirical Study for Sustainable Development. Business Strategy and the Environment 22 : 187–201. DOI: 10.1002/bse.1747
  • Garcia AS, Mendes-Da-Silva W, Orsato R. 2017. Sensitive industries produce better ESG performance: Evidence from emerging markets. Journal of Cleaner Production 150 : 135–147. DOI: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.02.180
  • De Grip A, Sauermann J. 2012. The Effects of Training on Own and Co-worker Productivity: Evidence from a Field Experiment. Economic Journal 122 : 376–399. DOI: 10.1111/j.1468-0297.2012.02500.x
  • De Grip A, Sauermann J. 2013. The effect of training on productivity: The transfer of on-the-job training from the perspective of economics. Educational Research Review 8 : 28–36. DOI: 10.1016/j.edurev.2012.05.005
  • Haque F, Ntim CG. 2018. Environmental Policy, Sustainable Development, Governance Mechanisms and Environmental Performance. Business Strategy and the Environment DOI: 10.1002/bse.2007
  • Henderson R. 2015. Making the Business Case for Environmental Sustainability. Leading Sustainable Change: An Organizational Perspective : 22–47. DOI: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198704072.003.0002
  • Hermalin BE, Weisbach MS. 2003. Boards Of Directors as an Endogenously Determined Institution: A Survey of the Economic Literature. Economic Policy Review 9 : 7–26. DOI: 10.2139/ssrn.233111
  • Hermalin BE, Weisbach MS. 2012. Information disclosure and corporate governance. Journal of Finance 67 : 195–234. DOI: 10.1111/j.1540-6261.2011.01710.x
  • Higginson N, Simmons C, Warsame H. 2006. Environmental disclosure and legitimation in the annual report - Evidence from the joint solutions project. Journal of Applied Accounting Research 8 : 3–23. DOI: 10.1108/96754260680001048
  • Hoobler JM, Masterson CR, Nkomo SM, Michel EJ. 2016. The Business Case for Women Leaders. Journal of Management : 014920631662864. DOI: 10.1177/0149206316628643
  • Jo H, Harjoto MA. 2011. Corporate Governance and Firm Value: The Impact of Corporate Social Responsibility. Journal of Business Ethics 103 : 351–383. DOI: 10.1007/s10551-011-0869-y
  • John C. 1992. Misery’s Child. Social Semiotics 2 : 73–92. DOI: 10.1080/10350339209360349
  • Konings J, Vanormelingen S. 2015. The Impact of Training on Productivity and Wages: Firm-Level Evidence. Review of Economics and Statistics 97 : 485–497. DOI: 10.1162/REST_a_00460
  • Lee K-H, Cin BC, Lee EY. 2016. Environmental Responsibility and Firm Performance: The Application of an Environmental, Social and Governance Model. Business Strategy and the Environment 25 : 40–53. DOI: 10.1002/bse.1855
  • Liang H, Renneboog L. 2017. On the Foundations of Corporate Social Responsibility. Journal of Finance 72 : 853–910. DOI: 10.1111/jofi.12487
  • Lokuwaduge CSDS, Heenetigala K. 2017. Integrating Environmental, Social and Governance (ESG) Disclosure for a Sustainable Development: An Australian Study. Business Strategy and the Environment DOI: 10.1002/bse.1927
  • Lorraine NHJ, Collison DJ, Power DM. 2004. An analysis of the stock market impact of environmental performance information. Accounting Forum 28 : 7–26. DOI: 10.1016/j.accfor.2004.04.002
  • Luan CJ, Tang MJ. 2007. Where is independent director efficacy? Corporate Governance 15 : 636–643. DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-8683.2007.00593.x
  • Margolis JD, Elfenbein HA, Walsh JP. 2009. Does it Pay to Be Good…And Does it Matter? A Meta-Analysis of the Relationship between Corporate Social and Financial Performance. SSRN Electronic Journal 1001 : 41234–48109. DOI: 10.2139/ssrn.1866371
  • Margolis JD, Walsh JP. 2003. Misery Loves Companies: Rethinking Social Initiatives by Business. Administrative Science Quarterly 48 : 268. DOI: 10.2307/3556659
  • McWilliams A, Siegel D. 2001. Corporate social responsibility: A theory of the firm perspective. Academy of Management Review 26 : 117–127. DOI: 10.5465/AMR.2001.4011987
  • Mervelskemper L, Streit D. 2017. Enhancing Market Valuation of ESG Performance: Is Integrated Reporting Keeping its Promise? Business Strategy and the Environment DOI: 10.1002/bse.1935
  • Michael V, Paul A. 1997. A resource-based perspective on corporate environmental performance and profitability Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner . Further reproduction prohibited without permission . 40 : 534–559. DOI: 10.2307/257052
  • Miles MP, Russell GR. 1997. ISO 14000 total quality environmental management: The integration of environmental marketing, total quality management, and corporate environmental policy. Journal of Quality Management 2 : 151–168. DOI: 10.1016/S1084-8568(97)90026-2
  • Moore G. 2001. Corporate social and financial performance: An investigation in the U.K. Supermarket industry. Journal of Business Ethics 34 : 299–315. DOI: 10.1023/A:1012537016969
  • Nollet J, Filis G, Mitrokostas E. 2016. Corporate social responsibility and financial performance: A non-linear and disaggregated approach. Economic Modelling 52 : 400–407. DOI: 10.1016/j.econmod.2015.09.019
  • Opler TC, Titman S. 2009. Financial Distress and Corporate Performance. Journal of Finance 49 : 1015–1040. DOI: 10.2307/2329214
  • Orlitzky M, Schmidt FL, Rynes SL. 2003. Corporate Social and Financial Performance: A Meta-Analysis. Organization Studies 24 : 403–441. DOI: 10.1177/0170840603024003910
  • Patten DM. 1992. Intra-industry environmental disclosures in response to the Alaskan oil spill: A note on legitimacy theory. Accounting, Organizations and Society 17 : 471–475. DOI: 10.1016/0361-3682(92)90042-Q
  • Peloza J. 2009. The Challenge of Measuring Financial Impacts From Investments in Corporate Social Performance. Journal of Management 35 : 1518–1541. DOI: 10.1177/0149206309335188
  • Porter ME, Linde C van der. 1995. Toward a New Conception of the Environment-Competitiveness Relationship. Journal of Economic Perspectives 9 : 97–118. DOI: 10.1257/jep.9.4.97
  • Post C, Byron K. 2015. Women on boards and firm financial performance: A meta-analysis. Academy of Management Journal 58 : 1546–1571. DOI: 10.5465/amj.2013.0319
  • Qiu Y, Shaukat A, Tharyan R. 2016. Environmental and social disclosures: Link with corporate financial performance. British Accounting Review 48 : 102–116. DOI: 10.1016/j.bar.2014.10.007
  • Rao P, Holt D. 2005. Do green supply chains lead to competitiveness and economic performance? International Journal of Operations & Production Management 25 : 898–916. DOI: 10.1108/01443570510613956
  • Riedl A, Smeets P. 2017. Why Do Investors Hold Socially Responsible Mutual Funds? Journal of Finance 72 : 2505–2550. DOI: 10.1111/jofi.12547
  • Santos L, Escanciano C. 2002. Benefits of the ISO 9000:1994 system. International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management 19 : 321–344. DOI: 10.1108/02656710210415703
  • Shane PB, Spicer BH, Shane PB, Spicer BH. 1983. Market response to environmental information produced outside the firm. The Accounting Review 58 : 521–538. DOI: 10.2307/246532
  • Siew RYJ. 2015. A review of corporate sustainability reporting tools (SRTs). Journal of Environmental Management 164 : 180–195. DOI: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2015.09.010
  • Sternberg E. 1997. The Defects of Stakeholder Theory. Corporate Governance: An International Review 5 : 3–10. DOI: 10.1111/1467-8683.00034
  • Terjesen S, Couto EB, Francisco PM. 2016. Does the presence of independent and female directors impact firm performance? A multi-country study of board diversity. Journal of Management and Governance 20 : 447–483. DOI: 10.1007/s10997-014-9307-8
  • Trumpp C, Guenther T. 2017. Too Little or too much? Exploring U-shaped Relationships between Corporate Environmental Performance and Corporate Financial Performance. Business Strategy and the Environment 26 : 49–68. DOI: 10.1002/bse.1900
  • Turban DB, Greening DW. 1997. Corporate Social Performance and Organizational Attractiveness To Prospective Employees. Academy of Management Journal 40 : 658–672. DOI: 10.2307/257057
  • Verrecchia RE. 1990. Information quality and discretionary disclosure. Journal of Accounting and Economics 12 : 365–380. DOI: 10.1016/0165-4101(90)90021-U
  • Verrecchia RE. 2001. Essays on disclosure. Journal of Accounting and Economics 32 : 97–180. DOI: 10.1016/S0165-4101(01)00025-8
  • Waddock SA, Graves SB. 1997. The corporate social performance-financial performance link. Strategic Management Journal 18 : 303–319. DOI: 10.1002/(SICI)1097-0266(199704)18:4<303::AID-SMJ869>3.0.CO;2-G
  • Wang S-Y. 2012. Credit Constraints, Job Mobility, and Entrepreneurship: Evidence from a Property Reform in China. Review of Economics and Statistics 94 : 532–551. DOI: 10.1162/REST_a_00160
  • Wang Z, Sarkis J. 2017. Corporate social responsibility governance, outcomes, and financial performance. Journal of Cleaner Production 162 : 1607–1616. DOI: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.06.142
  • Weber O. 2014. Environmental, social and governance reporting in China. Business Strategy and the Environment DOI: 10.1002/bse.1785
  • Yu EP, Guo CQ, Luu B Van. 2018. Environmental, social and governance transparency and firm value. Business Strategy and the Environment DOI: 10.1002/bse.2047
  • Zhu J, Ye K, Tucker JW, Chan K (Johnny) C. 2016. Board hierarchy, independent directors, and firm value: Evidence from China. Journal of Corporate Finance 41 : 262–279. DOI: 10.1016/j.jcorpfin.2016.09.009

  </div>
  

• Yagi, M. and Kokubu, K., “Corporate Material Flow Management in Thailand: The Way to Material Flow Cost Accounting,” Journal of Cleaner Production, vol. 198, pp.763-775, 2018. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.07.007

  Download

  ScienceDirect.com MPRA [DiscussionPaper] Researchmap

  Abstract

  In recent years, material flow cost accounting (MFCA) has gradually been recognized in Asia by the standardization of ISO 14051 and 14052 and by the project of dissemination undertaken by the Asian Productivity Organization (APO). However, MFCA is still not used across the board. This study analyzes the characteristics of material flow (MF) management to facilitate the expanded use of MFCA. The research framework of this study investigates the degree of MF management and the sequential re- lationships among financial factors, MF management, and waste performance, based on a questionnaire survey of non-financial listed companies in Thailand. Fifty-eight percent of the respondent firms answer that they are managing MF information (self-rating). Meanwhile, 50%, 49%, 29%, and 24% of the firms actually disclose the amounts of total waste, hazardous waste, raw materials consumed, and recycled waste, respectively. The results of this study show that respondent firms with MF management (self-rating) are more likely to manage/disclose total waste, hazardous waste, and raw materials consumed than those without it. In terms of financial factors, cost ratio and profitability are likely to affect firm decisions regarding whether to manage the MF. Additionally, MF management is likely to decrease the hazardous waste ratio. The series of results shows that firms in Thailand are more likely to be concerned about hazardous waste management than resource efficiency. Therefore, hazardous waste should probably be thoroughly managed, as a preliminary step in the promotion of MFCA.

  References

  • Asian Productivity Organization (APO), 2012. Annual Report 2012. http://www.apo-tokyo.org/publications/ebooks/annual-report-2012/ [accessed Mar. 2018].
  • Asian Productivity Organization (APO), 2014. Manual on Material Flow Cost Accounting: ISO 14051. http://www.apo-tokyo.org/publications/ebooks/manual-on-material-flow-cost-accounting-iso-14051/ [accessed Mar. 2018].
  • Asian Productivity Organization (APO), 2016. Annual Report 2015. http://www.apo-tokyo.org/publications/ebooks/apo-annual-report-2015/ [accessed Mar. 2018].
  • Bautista-Lazo, S., Short, T., 2013. Introducing the All Seeing Eye of Business: a model for understanding the nature, impact and potential uses of waste. Journal of Cleaner Production 40, 141–150. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2012.09.011
  • Biemer, P.P., Christ, S.L., Wiesen, C.A., 2009. A general approach for estimating scale score reliability for panel survey data. Psychological Methods 14, 400–412. doi:10.1037/a0016618
  • Bierer, A., Götze, U., Meynerts, L., Sygulla, R., 2015. Integrating life cycle costing and life cycle assessment using extended material flow cost accounting. Journal of Cleaner Production 108, 1289–1301. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.08.036
  • Chompu-Inwai, R., Jaimjit, B., Premsuriyanunt, P., 2015. A combination of Material Flow Cost Accounting and design of experiments techniques in an SME: The case of a wood products manufacturing company in northern Thailand. Journal of Cleaner Production 108, 1352–1364. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.08.039
  • Christ, K.L., Burritt, R.L., 2015. Material flow cost accounting: a review and agenda for future research. Journal of Cleaner Production 108, 1378–1389. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.09.005
  • Fakoya, M.B., Van der Poll, H.M., 2013. Integrating ERP and MFCA systems for improved waste-reduction decisions in a brewery in South Africa. Journal of Cleaner Production 40, 136–140. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2012.09.013
  • Guenther, E., Jasch, C., Schmidt, M., Wagner, B., Ilg, P., 2015. Material flow cost accounting - Looking back and ahead. Journal of Cleaner Production 108, 1249–1254. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.10.018
  • Haraguchi, M., Lall, U., 2015. Flood risks and impacts: A case study of Thailand’s floods in 2011 and research questions for supply chain decision making. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction 14, 256–272. doi:10.1016/j.ijdrr.2014.09.005
  • ISO, 2011. ISO 14051:2011(en) Environmental management — Material flow cost accounting — General framework. https://www.iso.org/obp/ui/#iso:std:iso:14051:ed-1:v1:en
  • ISO, 2017. ISO 14052:2017(en) Environmental management — Material flow cost accounting — Guidance for practical implementation in a supply chain. https://www.iso.org/obp/ui/#iso:std:iso:14052:ed-1:v1:en
  • Jakrawatana, N., Pingmuangleka, P., Gheewala, S.H., 2016. Material flow management and cleaner production of cassava processing for future food, feed and fuel in Thailand. Journal of Cleaner Production 134, 633–641. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.06.139
  • Jasch, C., 2003. The use of Environmental Management Accounting (EMA) for identifying environmental costs. Journal of Cleaner Production 11, 667–676. doi:10.1016/S0959-6526(02)00107-5
  • Jasch, C., 2006. How to perform an environmental management cost assessment in one day. Journal of Cleaner Production 14, 1194–1213. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2005.08.005
  • Jasch, C., 2015. Governmental initiatives: the UNIDO (United Nations Industrial Development Organization) TEST approach. Journal of Cleaner Production 108, 1375–1377. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.10.019
  • Kasemset, C., Chernsupornchai, J., Pala-ud, W., 2013. Application of MFCA in waste reduction: Case study on a small textile factory in Thailand. Journal of Cleaner Production 108, 1342–1351. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.09.071
  • Kitada, H., Kokubu, K., Gunther, E., Walz, M, Wu, Q., 2016. The effect of environmental management practices on MFCA adoption in Japan. Paper presented at 8th Asia-Pacific Interdisciplinary Research in Accounting Conference, RMIT University, Australia, 12-15 July, 2016.
  • Kokubu, K., Kitada, H., 2015. Material flow cost accounting and existing management perspectives. Journal of Cleaner Production 108, 1279–1288. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.08.037
  • Kokubu, K., Nakajima, M. (eds.), 2018. Theory and Practice of Material Flow Cost Accounting. Tokyo: Dobunkan Shuppan. Co. Ltd. [Japanese].
  • Kuosmanen, T., Kazemi Matin, R., 2011. Duality of weakly disposable technology. Omega 39, 504–512. doi:10.1016/j.omega.2010.10.008
  • Kurdve, M., Shahbazi, S., Wendin, M., Bengtsson, C., Wiktorsson, M., 2015. Waste flow mapping to improve sustainability of waste management: a case study approach. Journal of Cleaner Production 98, 304–315. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.06.076
  • Mahmoudi, E., Jodeiri, N., Fatehifar, E., 2017. Implementation of material flow cost accounting for efficiency improvement in wastewater treatment unit of Tabriz oil refining company. Journal of Cleaner Production 165, 530–536. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.07.137
  • Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Japan (MOFA), 2017. Basic data of Kingdom of Thailand. http://www.mofa.go.jp/mofaj/area/thailand/data.html [accessed Mar. 2018].
  • Nakajima, M., Kimura, A., Wagner, B., 2013. Introduction of material flow cost accounting (MFCA) to the supply chain: A questionnaire study on the challenges of constructing a low-carbon supply chain to promote resource efficiency. Journal of Cleaner Production 108, 1302–1309. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.10.044
  • Nakano, K., Hirao, M., 2011. Collaborative activity with business partners for improvement of product environmental performance using LCA. Journal of Cleaner Production 19, 1189–1197. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2011.03.007
  • Rieckhof, R., Bergmann, A., Guenther, E., 2015. Interrelating material flow cost accounting with management control systems to introduce resource efficiency into strategy. Journal of Cleaner Production 108, 1262–1278. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.10.040
  • Simons, R., 1994. How new top managers use control systems as levers of strategic renewal. Strategic Management Journal 15, 169–189. doi:10.1002/smj.4250150301
  • Simons, R., 1995. Levers of Control: How Managers Use Innovative Control Systems to Drive Strategic Renewal, Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA.
  • Singkran, N., 2017. Flood risk management in Thailand: Shifting from a passive to a progressive paradigm. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction 25, 92–100. doi:10.1016/j.ijdrr.2017.08.003
  • Schaltegger, S., Zvezdov, D., 2015. Expanding material flow cost accounting. Framework, review and potentials. Journal of Cleaner Production 108, 1333–1341. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.08.040
  • Schmidt, A., Götze, U., Sygulla, R., 2015. Extending the scope of Material Flow Cost Accounting – methodical refinements and use case. Journal of Cleaner Production 108, 1320–1332. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.10.039
  • Schmidt, M., 2015. The interpretation and extension of Material Flow Cost Accounting (MFCA) in the context of environmental material flow analysis. Journal of Cleaner Production 108, 1310–1319. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.11.038
  • Sulong, F., Sulaiman, M., Norhayati, M.A., 2015. Material Flow Cost Accounting (MFCA) enablers and barriers: the case of a Malaysian small and medium-sized enterprise (SME). Journal of Cleaner Production 108, 1365–1374. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.08.038
  • United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), 2015. Sustainable Consumption and Production: A Handbook for Policy Makers (Global Edition). <https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/documents/1951Sustainable Consumption.pdf> [accessed Jul. 2017].
  • Wagner, B., 2015. A report on the origins of Material Flow Cost Accounting (MFCA) research activities. Journal of Cleaner Production 108, 1255–1261. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.10.020
  • Wan, Y.K., Ng, R.T.L., Ng, D.K.S., Tan, R.R., 2015. Material flow cost accounting (MFCA)–based approach for prioritisation of waste recovery. Journal of Cleaner Production 107, 602–614. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.05.024
  • Zhou, Z., Zhao, W., Chen, X., Zeng, H., 2017. MFCA extension from a circular economy perspective: Model modifications and case study. Journal of Cleaner Production 149, 110–125. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.02.049

  </div>
  

• Yagi, M. and Managi, S., “Decomposition Analysis of Corporate Carbon Dioxide and Greenhouse Gas Emissions in Japan: Integrating Corporate Environmental and Financial Performances,” Business Strategy and the Environment, vol. 27(8), pp.1476-1492, 2018. doi: 10.1002/bse.2206

  Download

  Wiley Online Library MPRA [DiscussionPaper] Researchmap

  Abstract

  Recent empirical studies often support the positive relationship between corporate environmental performance (CEP) in terms of carbon dioxide (CO2) and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and corporate financial performance (CFP). However, this depends on the measurements of CEP (the absolute and relative CEP) and CFP (accounting-based and market-based CFP). To understand the relationship structurally, based on the literature, this study proposes identity models that integrate CO2 and GHG emissions and financial factors. The models decompose CO2 (GHG) emissions into carbon intensity (GHG intensity), energy intensity, the cost-to-sales ratio, the total-assets-turnover ratio (TATR), leverage, and equity. The model of supply-chain GHG emissions additionally adopts supply-chain GHG intensity. As a decomposition method, this study uses the log-mean Divisia index (LMDI). As an application example of the carbon dioxide model, this study targets Japanese manufacturing firms in 16 sectors from fiscal years (FY) 2011 to 2015. Results show that the change in CO2 emissions as of 2015 (−802.1 kilotonnes [kt]) is decomposed into 2922.5 kt for carbon intensity, −26036.3 kt for energy intensity, −6350.5 kt for the cost-to-sales ratio, −8495.6 kt for the TATR, −7912.3 kt for leverage, and 45070.1 kt for equity. Average values of relative contribution ratios are 20.6% for carbon intensity, 19.1% for energy intensity, and the remaining approximately 60% for financial factors. Among the 16 sectors, as of 2015, the change in total CO2 emission is statistically significantly positive for equity and significantly negative for the TATR and leverage, and it is not significantly correlated to the carbon intensity, the energy intensity, and the cost-to-sales ratio.

  References

  • Aguinis, H., Glavas, A., 2012. What We Know and Don’t Know About Corporate Social Responsibility. Journal of Management 38, 932–968. doi:10.1177/0149206311436079
  • Ang, B.W., 2004. Decomposition analysis for policymaking in energy: Energy Policy 32, 1131–1139. doi:10.1016/S0301-4215(03)00076-4
  • Ang, B.W., 2015. LMDI decomposition approach: A guide for implementation. Energy Policy 86, 233–238. doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2015.07.007
  • Ang, B.W., Zhang, F.Q., 2000. A survey of index decomposition analysis in energy and environmental studies. Energy 25, 1149–1176. doi:10.1016/S0360-5442(00)00039-6
  • Asian Productivity Organization (APO), 2014. Manual on Material Flow Cost Accounting: ISO 14051, Asian Productivity Organization, Japan. http://www.apo-tokyo.org/publications/wp-content/uploads/sites/5/Manual_on_Material_Flow_Cost_Accounting_ISO14051-2014.pdf (accessed Apr. 2018).
  • Bierer, A., Götze, U., Meynerts, L., Sygulla, R., 2015. Integrating life cycle costing and life cycle assessment using extended material flow cost accounting. Journal of Cleaner Production 108, 1289–1301. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.08.036
  • Busch, T., Hoffmann, V.H., 2011. How Hot Is Your Bottom Line? Linking Carbon and Financial Performance. Business & Society 50, 233–265. doi:10.1177/0007650311398780
  • Busch, T., Lewandowski, S., 2017. Corporate Carbon and Financial Performance: A Meta-analysis. Journal of Industrial Ecology 0, 1–15. doi:10.1111/jiec.12591
  • Cansino, J.M., Sánchez-Braza, A., Rodríguez-Arévalo, M.L., 2015. Driving forces of Spain’s CO2 emissions: A LMDI decomposition approach. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 48, 749–759. doi:10.1016/j.rser.2015.04.011
  • Capece, G., Di Pillo, F., Gastaldi, M., Levialdi, N., Miliacca, M., 2017. Examining the effect of managing GHG emissions on business performance. Business Strategy and the Environment 26, 1041–1060. doi:10.1002/bse.1956
  • Carroll, A.B., Shabana, K.M., 2010. The business case for corporate social responsibility: A review of concepts, research and practice. International Journal of Management Reviews 12, 85–105. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2370.2009.00275.x
  • Chapman, A., Fujii, H., Managi, S., 2018. Key Drivers for Cooperation toward Sustainable Development and the Management of CO2 Emissions: Comparative Analysis of Six Northeast Asian Countries. Sustainability 10, 244. doi:10.3390/su10010244
  • Chong, C., Ma, L., Li, Z., Ni, W., Song, S., 2015. Logarithmic mean Divisia index (LMDI) decomposition of coal consumption in China based on the energy allocation diagram of coal flows. Energy 85, 366–378. doi:10.1016/j.energy.2015.03.100
  • Christ, K.L., Burritt, R.L., 2015. Material flow cost accounting: a review and agenda for future research. Journal of Cleaner Production 108, 1378–1389. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.09.005
  • Delmas, M.A., Nairn-Birch, N., Lim, J., 2015. Dynamics of Environmental and Financial Performance. Organization & Environment 28, 374–393. doi:10.1177/1086026615620238
  • Fire and Disaster Management Agency of the Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications, 2018, Report on The Great East Japan Earthquake in H23 (2011) (157th) [Japanese]. http://www.fdma.go.jp/bn/higaihou/pdf/jishin/157.pdf (accessed Apr. 2018).
  • Fujii, H., 2016. Decomposition analysis of green chemical technology inventions from 1971 to 2010 in Japan. Journal of Cleaner Production 112, 4835–4843. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.07.123
  • Fujii, H., Iwata, K., Kaneko, S., Managi, S., 2013. Corporate Environmental and Economic Performance of Japanese Manufacturing Firms: Empirical Study for Sustainable Development. Business Strategy and the Environment 22, 187–201. doi:10.1002/bse.1747
  • Fujii, H., Managi, S., 2016. Research and development strategy for environmental technology in Japan: A comparative study of the private and public sectors. Technological Forecasting and Social Change 112, 293–302. doi:10.1016/j.techfore.2016.02.012
  • Fujii, H., Yoshida, K., Sugimura, K., 2016. Research and Development Strategy in Biological Technologies: A Patent Data Analysis of Japanese Manufacturing Firms. Sustainability 8, 351. doi:10.3390/su8040351
  • Fujii, H., Okamoto, S., Kagawa, S., Managi, S., 2017. Decomposition of toxicity emission changes on the demand and supply sides: empirical study of the US industrial sector. Environmental Research Letters 12, 124008. doi:10.1088/1748-9326/aa9c66
  • Guenther, E., Jasch, C., Schmidt, M., Wagner, B., Ilg, P., 2015. Material Flow Cost Accounting – looking back and ahead. Journal of Cleaner Production 108, 1249–1254. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.10.018
  • Griffin, J.J., Mahon, J.F., 1997. The Corporate Social Performance and Corporate Financial Performance Debate. Business & Society 36, 5–31. doi:10.1177/000765039703600102
  • Hatakeda, T., Kokubu, K., Kajiwara, T., Nishitani, K., 2012. Factors Influencing Corporate Environmental Protection Activities for Greenhouse Gas Emission Reductions: The Relationship Between Environmental and Financial Performance. Environmental and Resource Economics 53, 455–481. doi:10.1007/s10640-012-9571-5
  • Hayashi, T., 2012. Japan’s Post-Disaster Economic Reconstruction: From Kobe to Tohoku. Asian Economic Journal 26, 189–210. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8381.2012.02082.x
  • Hayes, G.P., Myers, E.K., Dewey, J.W., Briggs, R.W., Earle, P.S., Benz, H.M., Smoczyk, G.M., Flamme, H.E., Barnhart, W.D., Gold, R.D., Furlong, K.P., 2017. Tectonic summaries of magnitude 7 and greater earthquakes from 2000 to 2015, U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2016–1192. doi:10.3133/ofr20161192
  • ISO, 2011. ISO 14051:2011(en) Environmental management — Material flow cost accounting — General framework. https://www.iso.org/obp/ui/#iso:std:iso:14051:ed-1:v1:en
  • ISO, 2017. ISO 14052:2017(en) Environmental management — Material flow cost accounting — Guidance for practical implementation in a supply chain. https://www.iso.org/obp/ui/#iso:std:iso:14052:ed-1:v1:en
  • Kaya, Y., Yokobori, K., 1998. Environment, Energy, and Economy Strategies for Sustainability. Tokyo: United Nations University Press.
  • Kokubu, K., Kitada, H., 2015. Material flow cost accounting and existing management perspectives. Journal of Cleaner Production 108, 1279–1288. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.08.037
  • Kwon, D.S., Cho, J.H., Sohn, S.Y., 2017. Comparison of technology efficiency for CO2 emissions reduction among European countries based on DEA with decomposed factors. Journal of Cleaner Production 151, 109–120. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.03.065
  • Managi, S., Guan, D., 2017. Multiple disasters management: Lessons from the Fukushima triple events. Economic Analysis and Policy 53, 114–122. doi:10.1016/j.eap.2016.12.002
  • Margolis, J.D., Walsh, J.P., 2003. Misery Loves Companies: Rethinking Social Initiatives by Business. Administrative Science Quarterly 48, 268. doi:10.2307/3556659
  • Nishitani, K., Kaneko, S., Komatsu, S., Fujii, H., 2014. How does a firm’s management of greenhouse gas emissions influence its economic performance? Analyzing effects through demand and productivity in Japanese manufacturing firms. Journal of Productivity Analysis 42, 355–366. doi:10.1007/s11123-014-0388-9
  • Raupach, M.R., Marland, G., Ciais, P., Le Quere, C., Canadell, J.G., Klepper, G., Field, C.B., 2007. Global and regional drivers of accelerating CO2 emissions. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 104, 10288–10293. doi:10.1073/pnas.0700609104
  • Rieckhof, R., Bergmann, A., Guenther, E., 2015. Interrelating material flow cost accounting with management control systems to introduce resource efficiency into strategy. Journal of Cleaner Production 108, 1262–1278. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.10.040
  • Roman, R.M., Hayibor, S., Agle, B.R., 1999. The Relationship between Social and Financial Performance. Business & Society 38, 109–125. doi:10.1177/000765039903800105
  • Schaltegger, S., Zvezdov, D., 2015. Expanding material flow cost accounting. Framework, review and potentials. Journal of Cleaner Production 108, 1333–1341. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.08.040
  • Su, B., Ang, B.W., 2012. Structural decomposition analysis applied to energy and emissions: Some methodological developments. Energy Economics 34, 177–188. doi:10.1016/j.eneco.2011.10.009
  • Wagner, B., 2015. A report on the origins of Material Flow Cost Accounting (MFCA) research activities. Journal of Cleaner Production 108, 1255–1261. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.10.020
  • Wang, L., Li, S., Gao, S., 2014a. Do Greenhouse Gas Emissions Affect Financial Performance? - an Empirical Examination of Australian Public Firms. Business Strategy and the Environment 23, 505–519. doi:10.1002/bse.1790
  • Wang, W., Liu, X., Zhang, M., Song, X., 2014b. Using a new generalized LMDI (logarithmic mean Divisia index) method to analyze China’s energy consumption. Energy 67, 617–622. doi:10.1016/j.energy.2013.12.064
  • World Resources Institute (WRI) and World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD), 2004. The Greenhouse Gas Protocol - A Corporate Accounting and Reporting Standard (Revised edition). http://www.ghgprotocol.org/sites/default/files/ghgp/standards/ghg-protocol-revised.pdf (accessed Mar. 2018).
  • World Resources Institute (WRI) and World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD), 2011. The Greenhouse Gas Protocol - Corporate Value Chain (Scope 3) Accounting and Reporting: Supplement to the GHG Protocol Corporate Accounting and Reporting Standard. http://www.ghgprotocol.org/standards/scope-3-standard (accessed Mar. 2018).

  </div>
  

• Yagi, M. and Managi, S., “Demographic determinants of car ownership in Japan,” Transport Policy, vol.50, pp.37-53, 2016. doi:10.1016/j.tranpol.2016.05.011

  Download

  ScienceDirect.com MPRA [DiscussionPaper] Researchmap

  Abstract

  This study empirically examines the demographic determinants of car ownership in Japan between 1980 and 2009. Unique car cohort data, composed of the car age and 11 car types, at the prefectural level, is analyzed. The primary reason for examining the demographic determinants of car ownership in Japan is because Japan is projected to face radical demographic changes in the next few decades. These projected changes include depopulation and an aging population with diminishing household size. This study will be the first empirical study of the car cohort model with large countrywide observations in the recent literature. This study classifies the demographic determinants into five categories: (I) longitudinal factors, (II) economic factors, (III) natural factors, (IV) social factors, and (V) other transports. Although some tendencies vary among car types, this study finds the following tendencies of ordinary car ownership (compact four-wheel drive trucks and regular and compact passenger cars). Regarding the longitudinal factors, the long-run effect is much higher than average in the recent literature, whereas the semi elasticity of car age is approximately −7%. Regarding the economic factors, the elasticities of income and fuel price on car ownership tend to be less intense than in earlier studies. Regarding the natural factors of population increase, the elasticities of population and average household size on car ownership tend to be negative. This indicates that a decrease in population and household size in Japan will accelerate car ownership. In addition, the ratio of elderly people has various effects depending on car types. Regarding the social factors of population increase, car ownership tends to be encouraged by the concentration of population within prefecture, and increased and decreased for relatively new (aged 2-11) and old (aged 12+) cars, respectively, by the concentration of population across prefectures. The former is probably due to a composite effect in urban and rural areas, whereas the latter may be a quick update cycle due to an effect of urbanization. Regarding other transports, the degrees of train and bus use tend to be negatively associated with ordinary car ownership. However, these effects are considerably small and often insignificant as in the literature.

  References

  • Anowar, S., Eluru, N., Miranda-Moreno, L.F., 2014. Alternative Modeling Approaches Used for Examining Automobile Ownership: A Comprehensive Review. Transport Reviews 34 (4), 441–473. doi:10.1080/01441647.2014.915440
  • Automobile Inspection and Registration Information Association [AIRIA]. 2015. Number of automobiels owned. http://www.airia.or.jp/publish/statistics/number.html [Accessed 9 August 2015].
  • Automobile Inspection and Registration Information Association [AIRIA]. 1981-2010. Number of automobiles owned by initial registered year.
  • Dargay, J.M., Vythoulkas, P.C., 1999. Estimation of a Dynamic Car Ownership Model Approach. Journal of Transport Economics and Policy 33 (3), 287–301.
  • Dargay, J.M., 2002. Determinants of car ownership in rural and urban areas: a pseudo-panel analysis. Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review 38 (5), 351–366. doi:10.1016/S1366-5545(01)00019-9
  • de Jong, G., Fox, J., Daly, A., Pieters, M., Smit, R., 2004. Comparison of car ownership models. Transport Reviews 24 (4), 379–408. doi:10.1080/0144164032000138733
  • Dunkerley, F., Rohr, C., Daly, A., 2014. Road traffic demand elasticities: A rapid evidence assessment. RAND Corporation Research Reports No. RR-888-DFT. http://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR888.html [Accessed 9 August 2015]
  • Economic and Social Research Institute, Cabinet Office, Government of Japan [ESRI]. (various years). Annual Report on National Accounts. http://www.esri.cao.go.jp/jp/sna/data/data_list/kakuhou/files/files_kakuhou.html [Accessed 9 August 2015].
  • Economic and Social Research Institute, Cabinet Office, Government of Japan [ESRI]. 2015. Prefectural Accounts. http://www.esri.cao.go.jp/jp/sna/data/data_list/kenmin/files/files_kenmin.html [Accessed 9 August 2015].
  • Goodwin, P., Dargay, J., Hanly, M., 2004. Elasticities of Road Traffic and Fuel Consumption with Respect to Price and Income: A Review. Transport Reviews 24 (3), 275–292. doi:10.1080/0144164042000181725
  • Graham, D.J., Glaister, S., 2004. Road Traffic Demand Elasticity Estimates: A Review. Transport Reviews 24 (3), 261–274. doi:10.1080/0144164032000101193
  • Hayashi, Y., Kato, H., Teodoro, R.V.R., 2001. A model system for the assessment of the effects of car and fuel green taxes on CO2 emission. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment 6 (2), 123–139. doi:10.1016/S1361-9209(00)00021-3
  • Ingram, G.K., Liu, Z., 1999. Motorization and the Provision of Roads in Countries and Cities, Policy Research Working Papers. The World Bank. doi:10.1596/1813-9450-1842
  • Institution for Transport Policy Studies [ITPS]. 1985-2010. Annual Report of Local Transportation.
  • Japan Automobile Manufacturers Association, Inc [JAMA]. 2015. Automobile industry in Japan: Four-wheel vehicles ― Sales. http://www.jama.or.jp/industry/four_wheeled/index.html [Accessed 9 August 2015].
  • Matas, A., Raymond, J.-Ll., 2008. Changes in the structure of car ownership in Spain. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice 42 (1), 187–202. doi:10.1016/j.tra.2007.08.005
  • Morisugi, H., Ohno, E., 1996. NOx Reduction Effects of the Policy to Reduce Diesel Automobiles and its Influence on Price Change, in: Hayashi, Y., Roy, J. (Eds.), Transport, Land-Use and the Environment. Kluwer Academic Publishers TRES4, pp. 171–190. doi:10.1007/978-1-4757-2475-2_9
  • National Institute of Population and Social Security Research [IPSS], 2012. Population Projections for Japan (January 2012): 2011 to 2060. http://www.ipss.go.jp/syoushika/tohkei/newest04/sh2401top.html [Accessed 9 August 2015]
  • National Institute of Population and Social Security Research [IPSS]. 2015. Population Statistics: XII. Prefectural Statistics. http://www.ipss.go.jp/syoushika/tohkei/Popular/Popular2015.asp?chap=0 [Accessed 9 August 2015].
  • National Police Agency, Japan. 2013. Statistics of driver’s license in 2010. https://www.npa.go.jp/toukei/menkyo/index.htm [Accessed 9 August 2015].
  • Oil Information Center, Institute of Energy Economics, Japan [OIC]. 2015. General retail price: gasoline, diesel oil, and lump oil at oil station. https://oil-info.ieej.or.jp/price/price.html [Accessed 9 August 2015].
  • Ortúzar, J.D.D., Willumsen, L.G., 2011. Modelling Transport, Fourth Edition. John Wiley & Sons, Ltd, Chichester, UK. doi:10.1002/9781119993308
  • Ritter, N., Vance, C., 2013. Do fewer people mean fewer cars? Population decline and car ownership in Germany. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice 50, 74–85. doi:10.1016/j.tra.2013.01.035
  • Statistics Bureau, Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications, Japan [MIAC]. 2012a. Historical Statistics of Japan: Chapter 2 Population and Households. http://www.stat.go.jp/english/data/chouki/02.htm [Accessed 9 August 2015].
  • Statistics Bureau, Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications, Japan [MIAC]. 2012b. Population Estimates: Time Series 2000 - 2010. http://www.e-stat.go.jp/SG1/estat/ListE.do?bid=000001039703&cycode=0 [Accessed 9 August 2015].
  • Statistics Bureau, Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications, Japan [MIAC]. 2015a. Population Estimates: Annual Report 2014. http://www.e-stat.go.jp/SG1/estat/ListE.do?lid=000001132435 [Accessed 9 August 2015].
  • Statistics Bureau, Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications, Japan [MIAC]. 2015b. Retail Price Survey: Retail price of gasoline for automobiles (brand code: 7301) in Tokyo (1966-latest month). http://www.stat.go.jp/data/kouri/doukou/8.htm [Accessed 9 August 2015].
  • Statistics Bureau, Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications, Japan [MIAC]. 2015c. Consumer Price Index (Standardized in 2010): City class, local city, metropolitan area, and prefectural capital (middle classification index). http://www.e-stat.go.jp/SG1/estat/List.do?bid=000001033708&cycode=0 [Accessed 9 August 2015].
  • Sun, Y., Susilo, Y.O., Waygood, E.O.D., Wang, D., 2014. Detangling the impacts of age, residential locations and household lifecycle in car usage and ownership in the Osaka metropolitan area, Japan. Journal of Zhejiang University SCIENCE A 15, 517–528. doi:10.1631/jzus.A1300345
  • Whelan, G., 2007. Modelling car ownership in Great Britain. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice 41 (3), 205–219. doi:10.1016/j.tra.2006.09.013

  </div>
  

• Yagi, M. and Managi, S., “Time-period and industry heterogeneity of innovation activity in Japan,” Economic Analysis and Policy, vol.50, pp.100-119, 2016. doi:10.1016/j.eap.2016.03.002

  Download

  ScienceDirect.com MPRA [DiscussionPaper] Researchmap

  Abstract

  This study examines time-period and industry heterogeneity of innovation activity in Japan from 1964 to 2006 using patent data and non-consolidated firm data. This study focuses on the following three periods, based on changes of the Japanese patent system, in and non-manufacturing industries: I) before 1976; II) 1976–1987; and III) after 1988. Specifically, for each degree of patent protection in each industry, this study examines how innovation activities are affected by the following determinants found in the innovation literature: size, market competition, and search variety (depth and scope). Empirical results show that when using the entire sample from 1964 to 2006, the size effect on innovation is significantly positive. In addition, the effects of market competition and search variety on innovation are inverse-U. When considering time-period heterogeneity, the effects of size and search variety are similar to the entire period; however, the inverse-U effect of market competition is broken after 1988. On the other hand, when considering industry heterogeneity, the effects of size and search variety are similar to the entire sample, but differ between manufacturing and non-manufacturing industries. In addition, the effect of market competition is not statistically significant in either industry.

  References

  • Acs, Z.J., and D.B. Audretsch, 1987, “Innovation, Market Structure, and Firm Size,” Review of Economics and Statistics, Vol.69 (4), pp.567−574.doi: 10.2307/1935950
  • Acs, Z.J., and D.B. Audretsch, 1988a, “Innovation in Large and Small Firms: An Empirical Analysis,” American Economic Review, Vol.78 (4), pp. 678−690. http://www.jstor.org/stable/1811167
  • Acs, Z.J., and D.B. Audretsch, 1988b, “Testing the Schumpeterian Hypothesis,” Eastern Economic Journal, Vol.14 (2), pp.129−140. < http://www.jstor.org/stable/40325184>
  • Aghion, P., N. Bloom, R. Blundell, R. Griffith, and P. Howitt, 2005, “Competition and innovation: An inverted-U relationship,” The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Vol.120 (2), pp.701−728. doi: 10.1162/0033553053970214
  • Blundell, R., R. Griffith, and J.V. Reenen, 1999, “Market Share, Market Value and Innovation in a Panel of British Manufacturing Firms,” The Review of Economic Studies, Vol. 66 (3), pp. 529−554. doi: 10.1111/1467-937X.00097
  • Boone, J., 2008a, “Competition: Theoretical parameterizations and empirical measures,” Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics, Vol. 164 (4), pp.587−611. doi: 10.1628/093245608786534640
  • Boone, J., 2008b, “A New Way To Measure Competition,” The Economic Journal, Vol. 118 (531), pp. 1245–1261. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-0297.2008.02168.x
  • Cohen, W.M. and Levin, R.C., 1989. “Chapter 18 − Empirical studies of innovation and market structure”, In Schmalensee, R. and R. Willig (Eds.), Handbook of Industrial Organization, Vol. II, pp. 1059−1107, North-Holland, Amsterdam. doi:10.1016/S1573-448X(89)02006-6
  • Cohen, W.M, and S. Klepper, 1996, “A reprise of size and R&D,” Economic Journal, Vol.106 (437), pp.925−951. doi:10.2307/2235365
  • Cohen, W. M., 2010, “Chapter 4 − fifty years of empirical studies of innovative activity and performance,” in Hall, B. H. and N. Rosenberg, (Eds.), Handbook of The Economics of. Innovation, Vol. 1, North-Holland, pp. 129−213. doi: 10.1016/S0169-7218(10)01004-X
  • Correa, J.A., 2012, “Innovation and competition: an unstable relationship,” Journal of Applied Econometrics, Vol.27 (1), pp.160−166. doi: 10.1002/jae.1262
  • Gilbert, R., 2006, “Looking for Mr. Schumpeter: Where are we in the competition–innovation debate?”, In Jaffe, A., J. Lerner, and S. Stern (Eds.), Innovation Policy and the Economy, Vol. 6, pp. 159–215, MIT Press/National Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge, MA. http://papers.nber.org/books/jaff06-1
  • Goto, A., and K. Motohashi, 2007, “Construction of a Japanese Patent Database and a first look at Japanese patenting activities,” Research Policy, Vol.36 (9), pp.1431−1442. doi: 10.1016/j.respol.2007.06.005
  • Hall, B.H., A.B. Jaffe, and M. Trajtenberg, 2001, “The NBER Patent Citations Data File: Lessons, Insights and Methodological Tools,” NBER Working Paper No. 8498. http://www.nber.org/papers/w8498.pdf
  • Horowitz, I., 1962, “Firm size and research activity”, Southern Economic Journal, Vol. 28 (3), pp. 298−301. doi: 10.2307/1055448
  • Ijichi, H, T. Iwasa, H. Odagiri, H. Keira, T. Koga, A. Goto, Y. Tawara, A. Nagata, and Y. Hirano, 2004, “Report on Japanese National Innovation Survey 2003,” Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology, National Institute of Science and Technology Policy [Japanese]. http://hdl.handle.net/11035/871
  • Ijichi, H, T. Iwasa, H. Odagiri, H. Keira, T. Koga, A. Goto, Y. Tawara, A. Nagata, and Y. Hirano, 2010, “Report on Japanese National Innovation Survey 2009,” Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology, National Institute of Science and Technology Policy [Japanese]. http://hdl.handle.net/11035/657
  • Inui, T., A. Kawakami, and T. Miyagawa, 2012, “Market competition, differences in technology, and productivity improvement: An empirical analysis based on Japanese manufacturing firm data,” Japan and the World Economy, Vol. 24 (3), pp.197−206. doi: 10.1016/j.japwor.2012.04.002
  • Kamien, M.I., and N.L. Schwartz, 1975, “Market structure and innovation: a survey,” Journal of Economic Literature, Vol.13 (1), pp.1−37. http://www.jstor.org/stable/2722211
  • Katila, R. and G. Ahuja, 2002, “Something Old, Something New: A Longitudinal Study of Search Behavior and New Product Introduction,” Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 45 (6), pp. 1183−1194. doi: 10.2307/3069433
  • Laursen, K., 2012, “Keep searching and you’ll find: what do we know about variety creation through firms’ search activities for innovation?” Industrial and Corporate Change, Vol. 21 (5), pp.1−40. doi:10.1093/icc/dts025
  • Lind, J.T., and H. Mehlum, 2010, “With or Without U? The Appropriate Test for a U-Shaped Relationship,” Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, Vol.72 (1), pp.109−118. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-0084.2009.00569.x
  • Motohashi, K., 2004, “Chapter 2. Japan’s patent system and business innovation: reassessing pro-patent policies,” In OECD (Eds.), Patents, Innovation and Economic Performance, OECD Conference Proceedings, pp. 53−82. doi:10.1787/9789264015272-en
  • Motohashi, K., 2011, “Innovation and Entrepreneurship: A first look at linkage data of Japanese patent and enterprise census”, RIETI Discussion Paper Series 11-E-007. http://www.rieti.go.jp/en/publications/summary/11020005.html
  • Motohashi, K., 2012, “Open Innovation and Firm’s Survival: An empirical investigation by using a linked dataset of patent and enterprise census”, RIETI Discussion Paper Series 12-E-036. http://www.rieti.go.jp/en/publications/summary/12050018.html
  • Nickell, S., 1996, “Competition and Corporate Performance,” Journal of Political Economy, Vol. 104 (4), pp. 724–746. doi:10.1086/262040
  • Patel, P. and K. Pavitt, 1997, “The technological competencies of the world’s largest firms: Complex and path-dependent, but not much variety,” Research Policy, Vol. 26 (2), pp. 141−156. doi:10.1016/S0048-7333(97)00005-X
  • Sakakibara, M. and L. Branstetter, 2001, “Do Stronger Patents Induce More Innovation? Evidence from the 1988 Japanese Patent Law Reforms,” The RAND Journal of Economics, Vol. 32 (1), pp. 77−100. http://www.jstor.org/stable/2696399
  • Scherer, F.M., 1967, “Market structure and the employment of scientists and engineers”, American Economic Review, Vol. 57 (3), pp.524−531. http://www.jstor.org/stable/1812118
  • Schumpeter, J., 1942, Capitalism, Socialism, and Democracy, New York: Harper and Row.
  • Tingvall, P.G., and A. Poldahl, 2006, “Is there really an inverted U-shaped relation between competition and R&D?” Economics of Innovation and New Technology, Vol.15(2), pp.101−118. doi: 10.1080/10438590500129755

  </div>
  

• Yagi, M., Fujii, H., Hoang, V., and Managi, S., “Environmental efficiency of energy, materials, and emissions,” Journal of Environmental Management, vol.161, pp.206-218, 2015. doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2015.06.054

  Download

  ScienceDirect.com MPRA [DiscussionPaper] Researchmap

  Abstract

  This study estimates the environmental efficiency of international listed firms in 10 worldwide sectors from 2007 to 2013 by applying an order-m method, a non-parametric approach based on free disposal hull with subsampling bootstrapping. Using a conventional output of gross profit and two conventional inputs of labor and capital, this study examines the order-m environmental efficiency accounting for the presence of each of 10 undesirable inputs/outputs and measures the shadow prices of each undesirable input and output. The results show that there is greater potential for the reduction of undesirable inputs rather than bad outputs. On average, total energy, electricity, or water usage has the potential to be reduced by 50%. The median shadow prices of undesirable inputs, however, are much higher than the surveyed representative market prices. Approximately 10% of the firms in the sample appear to be po- tential sellers or production reducers in terms ofundesirable inputs/outputs, which implies that the price of each item at the current level has little impact on most of the firms. Moreover, this study shows that the environmental, social, and governance activities of a firm do not considerably affect environmental efficiency.

  References

  • Aigner, D.J., Chu, S.F., 1968. On Estimating the Industry Production Function. American Economic Review, 58 (4), 826–839. http://www.jstor.org/stable/1815535/
  • Burtraw, D., Szambelan, S.J., 2009. U.S. Emissions Trading Markets for SO2 and NOx. Resources for the future Discussion Paper, No. 09-40, 1–42. doi:10.2139/ssrn.1490037
  • Cazals, C., Florens, J.P., Simar, L., 2002. Nonparametric frontier estimation: A robust approach. Journal of Econometrics, 106 (98), 1–25. doi:10.1016/S0304-4076(01)00080-X
  • Chambers, R.G., 2002. Exact nonradial input, output, and productivity measurement. Economic Theory 20, 751–765. doi:10.1007/s001990100231
  • Charnes, A., Cooper, W.W., 1962. Programming with linear fractional functionals. Naval Research Logistics Quarterly, 9 (3–4), 181–186. doi:10.1002/nav.3800090303
  • Cherchye, L., Kuosmanen, T., Post, T., 2001. FDH Directional Distance Functions: With an Application to European Commercial Banks. Journal of Productivity Analysis, 15 (3), 201–215. doi:10.1023/A:1011176325187
  • Daraio, C; Simar, L., 2007. Advance Robust and Nonparametric Methods in Efficiency Analysis. Springer: New York, USA. doi:10.1007/978-0-387-35231-2
  • Deprins, D., Simar, L., Tulkens, H., 2006. Measuring Labor-Efficiency in Post Offices, in: Chander, P., Drèze, J., Lovell, C.K., Mintz, J. (Eds.), Public Goods, Environmental Externalities and Fiscal Competition, Part III. Springer US, 285–309. doi:10.1007/978-0-387-25534-7_16
  • European Commission, 2012. Report from the commission to the European parliament and the council: the state of the European carbon market in 2012. http://ec.europa.eu/clima/policies/ets/reform/docs/com_2012_652_en.pdf [accessed: November 14, 2014]
  • Färe, R., Grosskopf, S., Noh, D.W., Weber, W., 2005. Characteristics of a polluting technology: Theory and practice. Journal of Econometrics, 126 (2), 469–492. doi:10.1016/j.jeconom.2004.05.010
  • Färe, R., Grosskopf, S., Tyteca, D., 1996. An activity analysis model of the environmental performance of firms—application to fossil-fuel-fired electric utilities. Ecological Economics, 18 (2), 161–175. doi:10.1016/0921-8009(96)00019-5
  • Fukuyama, H., Weber, W.L., 2008. Japanese banking inefficiency and shadow pricing. Mathematical and Computer Modelling, 48 (11–12), 1854–1867. doi:10.1016/j.mcm.2008.03.004
  • Kumbhakar, S.C., 1996. Efficiency measurement with multiple outputs and multiple inputs. Journal of Productivity Analysis, 7 (2–3), 225–255. doi:10.1007/BF00157043
  • Kuosmanen, T., Cherchye, L., Sipiläinen, T., 2006. The law of one price in data envelopment analysis: Restricting weight flexibility across firms. European Journal of Operational Research, 170 (3), 735–757. doi:10.1016/j.ejor.2004.07.063
  • International Energy Agency, 2013, Key world energy statistics 2013. http://www.iea.org/publications/freepublications/publication/KeyWorld2013.pdf [accessed: November 14, 2014]
  • Ishinabe, N., Fujii, H., Managi, S., 2013. The true cost of greenhouse gas emissions: Analysis of 1,000 global companies. PLoS ONE, 8 (11), e78703, 1–9. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0078703
  • Lee, J.-D., Park, J.-B., Kim, T.-Y., 2002. Estimation of the shadow prices of pollutants with production/environment inefficiency taken into account: a nonparametric directional distance function approach. Journal of Environmental Management, 64 (4), 365–375. doi:10.1006/jema.2001.0480
  • Leleu, H., 2009. Mixing DEA and FDH models together. Journal of the Operational Research Society, 60 (12), 1730–1737. doi:10.1057/jors.2008.142 OECD, 2010. Pricing Water Resources and Water and Sanitation Services. doi:10.1787/9789264083608-en
  • Ray, S.C., Mukherjee, K., 2007. Efficiency in Managing the Environment and the Opportunity Cost of Pollution Abatement. Economics Working Papers 200709: University of Connecticut. http://digitalcommons.uconn.edu/econ_wpapers/200709/ [accessed: November 14, 2014]
  • Schmalensee, R., Stavins, R.N., 2013. The SO2 Allowance Trading System: The Ironic History of a Grand Policy Experiment. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 27 (1), 103–122. doi:10.1257/jep.27.1.103
  • Tauchmann, H., 2011. Partial frontier efficiency analysis for Stata. Discussion paper SFB 823: Technical University of Dortmund, No.25/2011. https://www.statistik.tu-dortmund.de/fileadmin/user_upload/SFB_823/discussion_papers/2011/DP_2511_SFB823_Tauchmann.pdf [accessed: November 14, 2014]
  • World Resources Institute and World Business Council for Sustainable Development, 2011, “Corporate Value Chain (Scope 3) Accounting and Reporting Standard.” http://www.ghgprotocol.org/standards/scope-3-standard [accessed: May 10, 2015]

  </div>
  

• Yagi, M., Managi, S., and Kaneko, S., “Water Use and Wastewater Discharge of Industrial Sector in China,” International Journal of Ecological Economics and Statistics, vol.32(1), pp.33-43, 2014.

  Download

  ceser.in (IJEES) MPRA [DiscussionPaper] Researchmap

  Abstract

  Problem of water scarcity has been increasingly severe in China. Though industrial sectors play important role for the rapid economic growth, and they consumes water and discharge wastewater. The purpose of this study is to examine the efficiency of water use and wastewater discharge in comparison with those of other inputs and production output in Chinese industry. Measuring efficiency of each input and output factor from 2002 to 2008, we find the average inefficiencies of industrial water use and industrial wastewater discharge are higher than those of capital, labor, and production output in China. In addition, the productivity levels to save water in the water shortage areas are not higher compared to the others. The water use inefficiency has a high dispersion especially in the regions where the amounts of water resources per capita is less than 3000 cubic meter.

  References

  • Cai, X.M., and Ringler, C., 2007, “Balancing agriculture and environmental water needs in China: alternative scenarios and policy options”, Water Policy, Vol.9, pp. 95–108.
  • Cooper, W.W., and Huang Z, Li S.X., Parker B.R., and Pastor J.T., 2007, “Efficiency aggregation with enhanced Russell measures in data envelopment analysis”, Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, Vol.41(1), pp.1–21.
  • European commission, 2010, Eurostat. <http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/ (accessed Apr 18, 2010)>
  • Fan, H., Huang, H., and Zeng, T., 2006, “Impacts of anthropogenic activity on the recent evolution of the Huang (Yellow) River Delta”, Journal of Coastal Research, Vol.22, pp.919–29.
  • Food and Agriculture Organization, 2002, “Aquastat”, Rome, Italy: Food and Agriculture Organization. <http://www.fao.org/nr/water/aquastat/data/query/index.html (accessed Apr 18, 2010)>
  • Foster, S., Garduño, H., Evans, R., Olson, D., Tian, Y., Zhang, W., and Han, Z., 2004, “Quaternary aquifer of the North China Plain — Assessing and achieving groundwater resource sustainability”, Hydrogeology Journal, vol.12, pp.81–93.
  • Fukuyama, H., and Weber, W.L., 2009, “A directional slacks-based measure of technical inefficiency”, Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, Vol.43, pp.274–87.
  • Han, Z.S., 2003, “Groundwater resources protection and aquifer recovery in China”, Environmental Geology, Vol.44, pp.106–11.
  • Hu J.L., Wang, S.C., and Yeh, F.Y., 2006, “Total-factor water efficiency of regions in China”, Resources Policy, Vol.31, pp.217–30.
  • Kenny, J.F., Barber, N.L., Hutson, S.S., Linsey, K.S., Lovelace, J.K., and Maupin, M.A., 2009, “Estimated use of water in the United States in 2005”, U.S. Geological Survey Circular 1344. <http://pubs.usgs.gov/circ/1344/ (accessed Apr 18, 2010)>
  • Liu, C.M., and Xia, J., 2004, “Water problems and hydrological research in the Yellow River and the Huai and Hai River Basins of China”, Hydrological Processes, Vol.18, pp.2197–210.
  • Liu, C.M., and Yu, J.J., 2001, “Groundwater exploitation and its impact on the environment in the North China Plain”, Water International, Vol.26, pp.265–72.
  • Managi, S. and S. Kaneko (2009), “Chinese economic development and the environment”, Edward Elgar Publishing Limited.
  • Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry, Japan, Census of Manufactures 2001 and 2006. <http://www.meti.go.jp/statistics/tyo/kougyo/index.html (accessed Apr 18, 2010)>
  • National Bureau of Statistics of P.R. China, China Statistical Yearbook 2002–2008, China Statistics Press.
  • United Nations Statistics Division, 2010, UNdata, New York: United Nations.<http://data.un.org/ (accessed Apr 18, 2010)>
  • Xia, J., Zhang, L., Liu, C.M., and Yu, J.J., 2007, “Towards better water security in North China”, Water Resource Management, Vol.21, pp.233–47.
  • Yang, H., and Abbaspour, K.C., 2007, “Analysis of wastewater reuse potential in Beijing”, Desalination, vol.212, pp.238–50.
  • Yang, J., 2009, “China’s water scarcity”, Journal of Environmental Management, Vol.90, pp.3185–96.

  </div>
  

• Yagi, M. and Managi, S., “Catch Limits, Capacity Utilization and Cost Reduction in Japanese Fishery Management,” Agricultural Economics, vol.42(5), pp.577-592, 2011. doi:10.1111/j.1574-0862.2010.00533.x

  Download

  Wiley Online Library MPRA [DiscussionPaper] Researchmap

  Abstract

  Japan’s fishery harvest peaked in the late 1980s. To limit the race for fish, each fisherman could be provided with specific catch limits in the form of individual transferable quotas (ITQs). The market for ITQs would also help remove the most inefficient fishers. In this article we estimate the potential cost reduction associated with catch limits, and find that about 300 billion yen or about 3 billion dollars could be saved through the allocation and trading of individual‐specific catch shares.

  References

  • Asche, F., Eggert, H, Gudmundsson, E., Hoff, A., Pascoe, S., 2008. Fisher’s behavior with individual vessel quotas—Over-capacity and potential rent five case studies. Mar. Policy 32, 920–927.
  • Clark, C.W., Munro, G.R., Sumaila, U.R., 2005. Subsidies, buyback, and sustainable fisheries. J. Environ. Econ. Manag. 50, 47–58.
  • Costello, C., Gaines, S.D., Lynham, J., 2008. Can catch shares prevent fisheries collapse? Science 321, 1678–1681.
  • Dervaux, B., Kerstens, K., Leleu, H., 2000. Remedying excess capacities in French surgery units by industry reallocations: The scope for short and long term improvements in plant capacity utilization. In: Blank, J. (Ed.), Public Provision and Performance: Contribution from Efficiency and Productivity Measurement. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp. 121–146.
  • F¨are, R., Grosskopf, S., Kerstens, K., Kirkley, J., Squires, D., 2001. Assessing short-run and medium-run fishing capacity at the industry level and its reallocation. In: Johnston, R. S. Shriver, A. L., (Eds.), Microbehavior and Macroresults. Proceedings of the 10th Biennial Conference of the International Institute of Fisheries Economics and Trade, July 2000, Corvallis, Oregon, USA, International Institute of Fisheries Economics and Trade, Corvallis, pp. 10–14.
  • F¨are, R., Grosskopf, S., Kokkelenberg, E.C., 1989. Measuring plant capacity, utilization and technical change: A nonparametric approach. Int. Econ. Rev. 30, 655–666.
  • F¨are, R., Grosskopf, S., Lovell, C.A.K., 1994. Production Frontiers. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
  • FAO of the United Nations, 2008a. Fisheries Management: 3. Managing fishing capacity. FAO Technical Guidelines for Responsible Fisheries vol 4(3), FAO/21916/G. FAO, Rome.
  • FAO of the United Nations, 2008b. FishStat Plus, Fisheries and Aquaculture Information and Statistics Service, Global Aquaculture Production, 1950– 2005. FAO, Rome. Available at http://www.fao.org/fishery/topic/16073, accessed 8 April 2008.
  • FAO of the United Nations, 2003. Measuring capacity in fisheries. In: Pascoe, S., Gr´eboval, D., (Eds.), FAO Fisheries Technical Paper 445. FAO, Rome.
  • Felthoven, R.G., Morrison Paul, C.J., 2004. Multi-Output, Nonfrontier Primal Measures of Capacity and Capacity Utilization. Am. J. Agric. Econ. 86(3), 619–633.
  • Gordon, H.S., 1954. The economic theory of a common property resource: The fishery. J. Pol. Econ. 62, 124–142.
  • Holland, D., Gudmundsson, E., Gates, J., 1999. Do fishing vessel buyback programs work: A survey of the evidence. Mar. Policy 23(1), 47–69.
  • Holland, D.S., 2007, “Managing environmental impacts of fishing: Input controls versus outcome-oriented approaches, Int. J. Global Environ. Issues 72(3), 255–272.
  • Holland, D.S., Lee, S.T., 2002. Impacts of random noise and specification on estimates of capacity derived from data envelopment analysis. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 137, 10–21.
  • Johansen, L., 1968. Production Functions and the Concept of Capacity. Recherches R´ecentes sur la Fonction de Production, Collection ‘Economie Mathe’matique et Econometrie’, Namur, n8 (in French).
  • Kerstens, K., Vestergaard, N. and Squires, D., 2006. A short-run Johansen industry model for common-pool resources: Planning a fisheries’ industry capacity to curb overfishing. Eur. Rev. Agric. Econ. 33(3), 361– 389.
  • Kirkley, J.E., Squires, D., Alam, M.F., Ishak, H.O., 2003. Excess capacity and asymmetric information in developing country fisheries: The Malaysian purse seine fishery. Am. J. Agric. Econ. 85(3), 647–662.
  • Kirkley, J.E., Squires, D.E., 1988. A limited information approach for determining capital stock and investment in a fishery. Fishery Bull. 86(2), 339–349.
  • Macinko, S., Bromley, D.W., 2002. Who Owns America’s Fisheries? Center for Resource Economics, Island Press, Covello, CA.
  • Managi, S., Opaluch, J.J., Jin, D., Grigalunas, T.A. 2004. Technological change and depletion in offshore oil and gas. J. Environ. Econ. Manag. 47(2): 388– 409.
  • Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries of Japan (MAFF), 2008. Japan’s Concept of Individual Transferable Quotas. Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries of Japan, Tokyo. Available at http://www.jfa.maff.go.jp/suisin/yuusiki/dai5kai/siryo_18.pdf
  • Morrison, C., 1985. Primal and dual capacity utilization: An application to productivity measurement in the U.S. automobile industry. J. Bus. Econ. Stat. 3, 312–324.
  • Nelson, R., 1989. On the measurement of capacity utilization. J. Indus. Econ. 37, 273–286.
  • Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), 1998. Review of Fisheries in OECD Countries: Glossary. OECD Publishing, Paris.
  • Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), 2006. Financial Support to Fisheries: Implications for Sustainable Development. OECD Publishing, Paris.
  • Pascoe, S., Gr´eboval, D., Kirkley, J., Lindebo, E., 2004. Measuring and appraising capacity in fisheries: Framework, analytical tools and data aggregation. FAO Fisheries Circular No. 994, FIPP/C994(En).
  • Peters, W., 1985. Can inefficient public production promote welfare? J. Econ. 45, 395–407.
  • Statistics Department—Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries (MAFF), 2007. Annual Statistics of Fishery and Fish Culture 2006.
  • Statistics Department—Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries (MAFF), 2005a. The 11th (2003) Fisheries Census.
  • Statistics Department—Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries (MAFF), 2005b. Annual Statistics of Fishery and Fish Culture 2003.
  • Statistics Department—Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries (MAFF), 2005c. Statistical Survey Report on Fishery Management of 2003.
  • Takarada, Y., Managi, S., 2010. Resource Economics: Case Study for Fishery. Minervashobo Publisher, Tokyo.
  • Tingley, D., and Pascoe, S., 2005a. Factors affecting capacity utilisation in English Channel fisheries. J. Agric. Econ. 56(2), 287– 305.
  • Tingley, D., and Pascoe, S., 2005b. Eliminating excess capacity: Implications for the Scottish fishing industry. Mar. Resour. Econ., 20(4), 407– 424.

  </div>
  

• 藤井秀道, 八木迪幸, 馬奈木俊介, 金子慎治, 「国内製造業の環境技術特許と財務パフォーマンスの因果関係性分析」, 『環境科学会誌』, 環境科学会, vol.24(2), pp.114-122, 2011. doi:10.11353/sesj.24.114

  J-STAGE Researchmap
• 八木迪幸，馬奈木俊介，「エネルギー技術進歩の要因分析」，『計画行政』，日本計画行政学会，vol.31(2)，pp.79-84，2008a.

  Researchmap ダウンロード 国立国会図書館サーチ
• 八木迪幸，馬奈木俊介，「環境規制と技術イノベーション:SOx･NOxにおける特許分析」，『環境科学会誌』環境科学会，vol.21(1)，pp.3-15，2008b. doi:10.11353/sesj1988.21.3

  J-STAGE Researchmap
• 馬奈木俊介，八木迪幸，「CSRと企業評価に関する分析」，『環境科学会誌』，環境科学会，vol.21(3)，pp.235-238，2008c. doi:10.11353/sesj1988.21.235

  J-STAGE Researchmap

2. Discussion papers (non peer-reviewed)

• 八木迪幸, 國部克彦, “Introductory analysis of sustainable production: Factors of corporate social responsibitily management in Japan,” 神戸大学大学院経営学研究科ディスカッション・ペーパー, 2017-19, 2017. https://www.b.kobe-u.ac.jp/paper/2017_19.html
• 八木迪幸, 國部克彦, “Introductory analysis of sustainable production in Southeast Asia and Japan: Corporate disclosure, green purchasing, and macro situation,” 神戸大学大学院経営学研究科ディスカッション・ペーパー, 2016-13, 2016. https://www.b.kobe-u.ac.jp/paper/2016_13.html
• 周博文, 八木迪幸, 國部克彦, “An empirical examination of how the corporate governance and strategy affect GHG emissions efficiency,” 神戸大学大学院経営学研究科ディスカッション・ペーパー, 2015-27, 2016. https://www.b.kobe-u.ac.jp/paper/2015_27.html
• 沈宇辰, 呉綺, Mahammod Tazul Islam, 八木迪幸, 國部克彦, “How do firms’ climate-related management and strategy affect climate change risks and opportunities awareness?” 神戸大学大学院経営学研究科ディスカッション・ペーパー, 2015-26, 2016. https://www.b.kobe-u.ac.jp/paper/2015_26.html
• Mai Huong Hoang, Mohammad Tazul Islam, 八木迪幸, 國部克彦, “Determinants of the efficiency of CDM and JCM projects: Viewing from financial and environmental outcomes” 神戸大学大学院経営学研究科ディスカッション・ペーパー, 2015-25, 2016. https://www.b.kobe-u.ac.jp/paper/2015_25.html
• Lara Makowski, 呉綺, 八木迪幸, 國部克彦, “Does corporate environmental performance change through environmental policies between pre and post 2011? Evidence from firm-level data in Germany and Japan,” 神戸大学大学院経営学研究科ディスカッション・ペーパー, 2015-24, 2016. https://www.b.kobe-u.ac.jp/paper/2015_24.html* Sun Xichen, Michiyuki Yagi, Katsuhiko Kokubu, “Expand the horizon: an empirical study of sustainable supply chain management and firm performance,” Proceedings of Annual Meeting of Environmental Systems Research (土木学会環境システム研究論文発表会講演集), vol. 42, pp.211-218, 2014. https://www.b.kobe-u.ac.jp/paper/2014_30.html
• Kohei Matsumoto, Michiyuki Yagi, Katsuhiko Kokubu, “Why Should Companies Implement Environmental and Social Policies?” Proceedings of Annual Meeting of Environmental Systems Research, vol. 42, pp.219-230, 2014. https://www.b.kobe-u.ac.jp/paper/2014_29.html
• Honami Sakaguchi, Michiyuki Yagi, Katsuhiko Kokubu, “How do firms disclose environmental information on climate change in aspects of both business risks and opportunities?” Proceedings of Annual Meeting of Environmental Systems Research, vol. 42, pp.237-244, 2014. https://www.b.kobe-u.ac.jp/paper/2014_31.html
• Oksana Arshynnikova, Michiyuki Yagi, Katsuhiko Kokubu, “The Role of Environmental, Social and Governance Initiatives in Securing Employee Retention,” Proceedings of Annual Meeting of Environmental Systems Research, vol. 42, pp.245-254, 2014. https://www.b.kobe-u.ac.jp/paper/2014_32.html
• Qi Wu, Michiyuki Yagi, Katsuhiko Kokubu, “The characteristics of corporate governance driving Environment Social Governance disclosure: In Energy & Utility Industry in Four Regions,” Proceedings of Annual Meeting of Environmental Systems Research, vol. 42, pp.255-266, 2014.
• Yagi, M. and S. Managi, “Competition and innovation: an inverted-U relationship using Japanese industry data”, RIETI Discussion paper, 13-E-62, 2013. http://www.rieti.go.jp/jp/publications/summary/13070005.html
• 馬奈木俊介，八木迪幸，「日本漁業における費用削減の可能性：Catch Limitの実証分析」，『日本水産学会誌』, 日本水産学会, vol.75(6), pp.1079-1080，2009. doi:10.2331/suisan.75.1079

  J-STAGE Researchmap

3. Books etc.

• Yagi, M., and Managi, S., 2020, Chapter 5. Various Capital Linkages in Inclusive Wealth: In Sato, M., Kitamura, Y., and Managi, S. (Eds.), ESD and Social Resilience in the SDGs Era, pp.121–154, Tsukuba-shobo, Tokyo. [Japanese]

  • English translation
  • 日本語原本 (Japanese original version)
  • Download (PDF)
    • [Japanese original] http://hdl.handle.net/10091/00022101
    • [English translation] http://hdl.handle.net/10091/00022102
  • Purchase (book edition)
    • https://www.hanmoto.com/bd/isbn/9784811905716
  • [Citation (Japanese)]
    • 八木迪幸, 馬奈木俊介, 2020, 「第5章 新国富（Inclusive Wealth）における多様な資本の連関」, 佐藤真久, 北村友人, 馬奈木俊介(編), 『SDGs時代のESDと社会的レジリエンス』, pp.121–154, 筑波書房, 東京.

  Abstract

  This chapter put forward an outline of inclusive wealth (IW) and carried out its analysis mainly in terms of Japan based on the estimated values of the three facets of IW capital: produced capital (PC), human capital (HC), and natural capital (NC). As an analysis of its contents, there are three indexes of IW, which are the total amount, the per-capita index, and productivity (i.e., value added divided by IW). As for the specific contents, it verified a comparison between 1990 and 2014 for the whole world (Section 3), for the IW of Japan (Section 3), a comparison between Japan and G7 (Section 4), a look at the IW by prefecture (Section 5), and the relevance of IW to measuring the damage due to the Nankai Trough earthquake (NTE) (Section 6).

  • Keywords: Inclusive wealth; produced, human, and natural capitals; inclusive wealth productivity; total amount index, per-capita index, and productivity index; damage analysis of Nankai Trough earthquake.
  • JEL codes: E01, O11, O40, Q01
• 八木迪幸，馬奈木俊介，「序章 本書の経済成長と技術進歩に関する背景と目次紹介」，馬奈木俊介編『環境・エネルギー・資源戦略―新たな成長分野を切り拓く』, pp.1-16, 日本評論社, 2013.

  Researchmap
• 八木迪幸，馬奈木俊介，「第4章 日本の漁業における費用削減の可能性」，寶多康弘，馬奈木俊介編『資源経済学への招待―ケーススタディとしての水産業』, pp.79-92, ミネルヴァ書房, 2010.

  Researchmap

4. Doctoral dissertation

• Yagi, M., “Efficiency Analysis of Technology in Japanese Industries”, The Course of Regional Environment and Socio-Cultural Studies, Graduate School of Environmental Studies, Tohoku University, 2013.

5. Conference presentations (○：Presenter)

5.1 International conference presentations

• ○Yagi, M. and S. Managi, “Cost Reduction and Capacity Output of Fishery Management in Japan”, The 1st congress of the EAAERE, Hokkaido University, Aug 18, 2010.
• ○Yagi, M. and S. Managi, “Resource Management and Capacity Utilization in Japan’s fishing industry”，R'09 Twin World Congress and World Resources Forum Nagoya, Japan, Sep, 2009.

5.2 Domestic conference presentations in Japan

• ○八木迪幸, 馬奈木俊介, 「COVID-19による国際供給制約」, 『環境経済・政策学会2020年大会』, Web開催, 2020年9月26-27日.

  要旨 (Dropbox) Researchmap
• ○八木迪幸 「企業の環境パフォーマンスと財務評価の関係解析に関する研究」, 『環境科学会2020年大会』, Web開催, 2020年9月19-20日（招待講演）.

  WEB動画 (vimeo) スライド資料 (Dropbox) 要旨 (Dropbox) Researchmap
• ○八木迪幸, 加河茂美, 馬奈木俊介, 藤井秀道, Dabo Guan,「地震の被災額推計: 産業連関分析による消費者余剰の損失評価」, 『環境経済・政策学会2019年大会』, 福島大学, 2019年9月28-29日.

  要旨 (Dropbox) Researchmap
• ○八木迪幸, 國部克彦, 「生産側からの持続可能な消費と生産フレームワーク：タイとベトナムへの適用」, 『環境科学会2019年大会』, 名古屋大学, 2019年9月13-14日.

  要旨 (Dropbox) Researchmap
• ○八木迪幸, 國部克彦, 「マテリアルフローコスト会計のための廃棄物分解分析」, 『環境経済・政策学会2018年大会』, 上智大学, 2018年9月.

  要旨 Researchmap
• ○八木迪幸, 馬奈木俊介, 「特許ストックのシャドウプライスと生産性」, 『環境経済・政策学会2017年大会』, 高知工科大学, 2017年9月.

  Researchmap
• ○八木迪幸, 馬奈木俊介, 「特許ストックのシャドウプライスと生産性」, 『環境経済・政策学会2017年大会』, 高知工科大学, 2017年9月.
• ○八木迪幸, 馬奈木俊介, “Demand elasticity in automobile industry in Japan”, 『環境経済・政策学会2016年大会』, 青山学院大学, 2016年9月.
• 八木迪幸, 馬奈木俊介, “Demographic determinants of aged car ownership between 1980 and 2009 in Japan”, 『環境経済・政策学会2015年大会』, 京都大学, 2015年9月.
• ○呉綺, 八木迪幸, 國部克彦, “Does corporate environmental performance change through environmental policies between pre and post 2011? Evidence from firm-level data in Germany and Japan”, 『環境経済・政策学会2015年大会』, 京都大学, 2015年9月.
• ○沈宇辰, 呉綺, イスラムタズル, 八木迪幸, 國部克彦,, “How do firms’ climate-related management and strategy affect climate change risks and opportunities awareness?”, 『環境経済・政策学会2015年大会』, 京都大学, 2015年9月.
• 周博文, ○八木迪幸, 國部克彦, “An empirical examination of how the corporate governance and strategy affect GHG emissions efficiency”, 『環境経済・政策学会2015年大会』, 京都大学, 2015年9月.
• ○Islam, M.T., M.H. Hoang, 八木迪幸, 國部克彦, 「Determinants of the efficiency of CDM and JCM projects: Viewing from financial and environmental outcomes”, 『環境経済・政策学会2015年大会』, 京都大学, 2015年9月.
• ○八木迪幸, 孫希辰, 國部克彦, “持続可能なサプライチェーンマネジメントと企業業績に関する実証分析”, 『第10回LCA学会研究発表会』, 神戸大学, 2015年3月.
• ○Sun Xichen, Michiyuki Yagi, Katsuhiko Kokubu, “Expand the horizon: an empirical study of sustainable supply chain management and firm performance,” 『土木学会第42回環境システム研究論文発表会』, 産業技術総合研究所-つくば中央共用講堂, 2014年10月.
• ○Kohei Matsumoto, Michiyuki Yagi, Katsuhiko Kokubu, “Why Should Companies Implement Environmental and Social Policies?” 『土木学会第42回環境システム研究論文発表会』, 産業技術総合研究所-つくば中央共用講堂, 2014年10月.
• ○Honami Sakaguchi, Michiyuki Yagi, Katsuhiko Kokubu, “How do firms disclose environmental information on climate change in aspects of both business risks and opportunities?” 『土木学会第42回環境システム研究論文発表会』, 産業技術総合研究所-つくば中央共用講堂, 2014年10月.
• ○Oksana Arshynnikova, Michiyuki Yagi, Katsuhiko Kokubu, “The Role of Environmental, Social and Governance Initiatives in Securing Employee Retention,” 『土木学会第42回環境システム研究論文発表会』, 産業技術総合研究所-つくば中央共用講堂, 2014年10月.
• ○Qi Wu, Michiyuki Yagi, Katsuhiko Kokubu, “The characteristics of corporate governance driving Environment Social Governance disclosure: In Energy & Utility Industry in Four Regions,” 『土木学会第42回環境システム研究論文発表会』, 産業技術総合研究所-つくば中央共用講堂, 2014年10月.
• ○八木迪幸, 藤井秀道, 國部克彦, Vincent Hoang, 馬奈木俊介, “Estimation of environmental efficiency of energy, materials and emissions using FDH”, 『環境経済・政策学会2014年大会』, 法政大学, 2014年9月.
• ○八木迪幸, Dabo Guan, Jun Li, 加河茂美, 馬奈木俊介, “東日本大震災が地域経済に与えた影響 The impact of 3.11 Tohoku Earthquake on Regional Economy in Japan”, 『環太平洋産業連関分析学会2013年大会』, 中京大学, 2013年10月.
• ○八木迪幸, 馬奈木俊介, “Effects of gasoline prices and car-ownership taxes on the auto fleet in Japan”, 『環境経済・政策学会2013年大会』, 神戸大学, 2013年9月.
• ○八木迪幸, 馬奈木俊介, “Competition and Innovation in Japan”, 『環境経済・政策学会2012年大会』, 東北大学, 2012年9月.
• ○藤井秀道, 八木迪幸, 馬奈木俊介, 金子慎治, 「国内製造業の環境技術特許と財務パフォーマンスの因果関係性分析」, 『環境科学会2010年会』, 東洋大学，2010年9月.
• 馬奈木俊介，○八木迪幸，「資源管理による費用削減の可能性」，『環境経済・政策学会2009千葉大会』，千葉大学，2009年9月．
• ○馬奈木俊介，八木迪幸，「日本漁業の効率性分析：費用削減の可能性」，『平成21年度日本水産学会春季大会』, 東京海洋大学，2009年3月．
• ○八木迪幸，馬奈木俊介，「エネルギー技術とR&Dの因果性分析」，『環境科学会2008年会』，東京，2008年9月．
• ○八木迪幸，馬奈木俊介，「環境規制と技術イノベーション:SOx･NOxにおける特許分析」，『環境経済・政策学会2007滋賀大会』，滋賀大学，2007年10月．
• 金子慎治，馬奈木俊介，金原達夫，藤井秀道，伊藤豊，○八木迪幸，「環境経営の経済性への影響分析」，『環境科学会2006年会』，上智大学，2006年9月．

5.3 Domestic poster presentations in Japan

• ○八木迪幸，馬奈木俊介，「エネルギー技術とR&Dの因果性分析」，『環境科学会2008年会』，東京，2008年9月．

6. Research funds & rewards (etc.) [in Japanese]

• 令和3-7年度, 日本学術振興会基盤研究C「ESG投資モデルの開発」(課題番号21K01698)
• 令和2年度, 環境科学会・奨励賞「企業の環境パフォーマンスと財務評価の関係解析に関する研究」
• 平成29-32年度, 日本学術振興会若手研究B「環境技術革新の指標開発と要因分析」(課題番号17K12856)
• 平成28-30年度, 環境研究総合推進費S16テーマ2サブテーマ2「アジアにおける企業の環境経営モデルの展開とステークホルダーによる導入支援方策」（研究代表者 國部克彦）研究分担者
• 平成26-28年度, 日本学術振興会若手研究B「環境効率に着目した自動車保有のコホート分析」(課題番号26740054)
• 平成23年度, 日本学術振興会特別研究員社会科学DC2採用 (23-3420)
• 平成22年度, 「環境技術の革新とマネジメント」, 財団法人損保ジャパン環境財団学術研究助成採用
• 平成21年度, 独立行政法人日本学生支援機構「特に優れた業績による返還免除」採用
• 平成21年度, 横浜国立大学経営学会賞優秀賞「広義のM&Aの財務パフォーマンス分析」
• 平成19年度, 横浜国立大学経営学会賞佳作「CSR 経営の評価と技術イノベーション」
• 八木迪幸, 高橋伸, 川合章喜子, 2006, 第3回神奈川産学チャレンジプログラム努力賞, 東京電力(株)「地球温暖化防止に向けた電力会社の取り組みについての提言」

7. Educational experience [in Japanese]

• 環境経済学特講, 信州大学大学院，総合人文社会科学研究科 (2020-21年度・後期)
• オペレーションズリサーチ入門, 信州大学経法学部 (2020-21年度・後期)
• 環境経済学I, 信州大学経法学部 (2018-21年度・後期)
• 環境経済学Ⅱ, 信州大学経法学部 (2019-21年度・前期)
• 新入生ゼミナールI, 信州大学経法学部 (2020-21年度・前期)
• 新入生ゼミナールII, 信州大学経法学部 (2018年度・後期)
• 経済学演習II・卒業論文, 信州大学経法学部 (2018年度・後期)
• Project Research: Sustainability Alliance Management, 神戸大学大学院SESAMIプログラム (2014-2017年度・前期）
• Research Seminar, 神戸大学大学院SESAMIプログラム (2017年度・後期）
• Environmental Economics and Management, 神戸大学大学院SESAMIプログラム (2014-2018年度・前期）
• 外国書購読, 神戸大学経営学部 (2015年度後期、2016年Q3-Q4. 2017年Q3-Q4）
• Environmental Management, 東北大学大学院環境科学研究科 (2013年4月26日).