Environmental regulations, R&D intensity, and enterprise profit rate: Understanding firm performance in heavy pollution industries
Bibliographic record
Abstract
With the worldwide green revolution, especially “pollution prevention and control” as one major strategy, environmental issues have received more and more attention. Environmental regulations, as an institutional norm, directly or indirectly regulate corporate behavior. Therefore, it is significant to examine the relationship between corporate performance and environmental regulations. In this paper, we conduct an empirical study on the relationships among environmental regulations, R&D intensity, and enterprise profit rate. Our data are from the 395 A-share companies in heavy pollution industries listed on the Shanghai and Shenzhen Stock Exchanges in China from 2008 to 2017. Our methodologies include Ordinary Least Squares mixed regression, quantile regression, and Generalized Method of Moments estimation. Our main research findings include the following. First, environmental regulation and R&D intensity both have a positive impact on corporate profit rate at the 1% significance level. Second, there are “threshold” effects on the promotion of corporate profit rate by environmental regulations and R&D intensity. Third, the product of environmental regulation and R&D intensity has a positive impact on corporate profit margin at the 1% significance level. Fourth, the impacts of environmental regulations and R&D intensity on corporate profit rate vary at different quantiles. Finally, R&D intensity is a partial mediation variable in the relationship between environmental regulations and enterprise profit rate. In terms of policy insights, our results suggest that the government formulate appropriate environmental regulations and enhance the support for enterprise R&D to stimulate technological innovation in the heavy pollution industries.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".