The impact of environmental tax reform on industrial green development: evidence from China
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction The transformation of environmental protection fees into environmental protection taxes in China reflects a broader commitment to ecological civilization. This reform aligns fiscal instruments with environmental objectives, aiming to internalize environmental costs and incentivize greener industrial behavior. However, empirical evidence on its actual impact on industrial green development remains limited. This study addresses this gap by investigating how the reform affects green total factor productivity (GTFP) in key industrial sectors. Methods We build a Difference-in-Differences model to assess the causal impact of the 2018 environmental tax change, using it as a quasi-natural experiment. A-share listed companies in industries with high levels of pollution from 2013 to 2022 are included in the sample. To further explore the transmission mechanism, we use mediation effect models to test whether the reform influences GTFP through changes in the degree of resource misallocation and green technological innovation. Multiple robustness checks, including parallel trends test, propensity score matching and placebo test, are conducted to ensure result validity. Results The results indicate that the reform significantly improves industrial green development, as measured by firm-level GTFP. In state-owned and highly polluting businesses, the effect is particularly noticeable. According to mechanism testing, the policy effect is communicated through a decrease in the degree of resource misallocation and more investment in green innovation. These findings are robust across alternative model specifications and variable definitions. Discussion This study offers new insights into how environmental tax policies contribute to sustainable industrial transformation. It highlights the importance of fiscal policy tools in steering firm behavior toward greener practices. Policymakers should focus on refining tax enforcement and complementing it with innovation incentives to amplify the reform’s effectiveness. The evidence underscores the critical role of institutional design in aligning industrial growth with environmental goals.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".