Export competitiveness of polish environmental products in select manufacturing sectors

• Autorzy: Koneczna R. , Kulczycka J.
• Języki publikacji: EN

Abstrakty

EN

Since Poland entered the European Union six years ago, many activities have been undertaken to protect the natural environment, and to put industry on a path toward sustainability. While the creation of environmental products is a long-term process, it can increase the competitiveness of the different industrial sectors and the economy. The aim of our paper is to analyze the competitiveness of environmental goods and services in nine selected manufacturing sectors in Poland to assess their export potential, primarily in third markets, including developing countries (DEV), by calculating RCA, IMP, RTA, and CR indexes. Conducted analysis proved that in recent years Poland had no comparative advantages over DEV in the field of environmental goods compared to OECD countries. It was also shown that increased outlays for environmental protection and the development of environmental technologies is an opportunity to make the analyzed sectors more competitive on the international market.

• Wydawca: -
• Czasopismo: Polish Journal of Environmental Studies
• Rocznik: 2011
• Tom: 20
• Numer: 6
• Opis fizyczny: p.1531-1539,fig.,ref,

Twórcy

autor

Koneczna R.

• Mineral and Energy Economy Research Institute, Polish Academy of Sciences, Wybickiego 7, 31-261 Kraków, Poland

autor

Kulczycka J.

• Mineral and Energy Economy Research Institute, Polish Academy of Sciences, Wybickiego 7, 31-261 Kraków, Poland

Bibliografia

• 1. PORTER M.E. van der LINDE C. Green and competitive: ending the stalemate, Harvard Bus. Rev. 73, 120, 1995.
• 2. Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions on the Sustainable Consumption and Production and Sustainable Industrial Policy Action Plan, Brussels, 16.7.2008 COM 397 final, 2008.
• 3. The World Competitiveness Report 1994, UN Publications, New York, 18, 1994.
• 4. The World Competitiveness Report 1995, UN Publications, New York, 19, 1995.
• 5. GALDEANO-GOMEZ E., CESPEDES-LORENTE J., MARTINEZ-Del-RIO J. Environmental performance and spillover effects on productivity: Evidence from horticultural firms, J. Environ. Manage., 88, 1552, 2008.
• 6. Report on the implementation of the Environmental Technologies Action Plan in 2004; COM (2005) 16 final; Commission of the European Communities; Brussels, 2005.
• 7. JAFFE A.B., PETERSON S.R., PORTNEY P.R., STAVINS R.N. Environmental Regulation and the Competitiveness of U.S. Manufacturing: What Does the Evidence Tell Us?, Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association 33, (1), 132, 1995.
• 8. COPELAND B.R., TAYLOR M.S. Trade, Growth and the Environment, NBER Working Papers 9823, National Bureau of Economic Research, 2003.
• 9. HUANG H., LABYS W.C. Environment and trade: a review of issues and methods, International Journal of Global Environmental Issues 2, (1), 100, 2002.
• 10. WÓJCIK K. Foreign Direct Investments in Poland, Expert Article 5 Baltic Rim Economies, Bimonthly Review 3, 2004.
• 11. TEMURSHOEV U. Pollution Haven Hypothesis Or Factor Endowment Hypothesis: Theory And Empirical Examination For The Us And Chin, Charles University Center for Economic Research and Graduate Education Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic Economics Institute, Working Paper Series 292, Prague, 2006.
• 12. LARSEN L. B. Strategic Implication of Environmental Reporting; Corporate Environmental Strategy 7, 276, 2000.
• 13. HART S.L. Beyond greening: strategies for a sustainable world. Harvard Bus. Rev., January-February, 67-76, 1997.
• 14. ARAGON-CORREA J.A., SHARMA S. A contingent resource-based view of proactive corporate environmental strategy. Acad. Manage. Rev., 28, 71, 2003.
• 15. SCHMOOKLER, J. Invention and Economic Growth; Harvard University Press, Cambridge, 1996.
• 16. ROSENBERG N. Inside the Black Box; Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1982.
• 17. JAFFE A.B. Demand and supply influences in R&D intensity and productivity growth; Review of Economics and Statistics 70, 431, 1988.
• 18. CHRISTMANN P., TAYLOR G. Globalization and the environment: determinants of firm self-regulation. J. Int. Bus. Stud, 3, 439, 2001.
• 19. SHARMA S., VREDENBURG H. Proactive corporate environmental strategy and the development of competitively valuable organizational capabilities. Strategic Manage. J. 19, 729, 1998.
• 20. Communication from the commission to the council, the European Parliament, the European economic and social committee and the committee of the regions; Report of the Environmental Technologies Action Plan (2005-2006); COM 162 final; Commission of the European Communities; Brussels, 2007.
• 21. Presidency Conclusions, Turku, Finland, 2006.
• 22. Ecological Industry Policy, Memorandum for a "New Deal" German Ministry for the Environment, 2006.
• 23. WASILEWSKI M., GAŁUSZKA-HARAT M. Sustainable production and consumptionin the lightof surveys, presentation of project results. Propagationproduction and consumption patterns conducive topromotingthe principlesof sustainabledevelopment; The Phare program PL2003/004-379/01.01.03/os/42/13, www.czystszaprodukcja.pl
• 24. Innovation activities of enterprisesin 2006-2008, GUS, Warszawa, 2009.
• 25. Environment Protection 2008; Information and statistical studies; CSO – Central Statistical Office; Warszawa, 2008.
• 26. Interim definition and classification of environment industry. Prepared in conjunction with OECD/Eurostat informal working group on the environment industry, OECD/GD (96). 117, 1996.
• 27. BALASSA B. The changing pattern of comparative advantage in manufactured goods. Rev. Econ. Stat. 61, 259, 1979.
• 28. MATUSZAK-FLEJSZMAN A. Determinants ofimprovement of the environmental management systemconforms to the requirementsof ISO 14001, Wyd. Uniwersytetu Ekonomicznego w Poznaniu, Poznań, 2010