Whether environmental regulation “forces” or “crowds out” corporate green innovation is both the core proposition of the four-decade Porter hypothesis debate and a practical concern for policy design under China’s “dual-carbon” goals. Taking the low-carbon city pilots established in three waves in 2010, 2012, and 2017 as a quasi-natural experiment, this paper uses panel data of 4957 Chinese A-share listed companies over 2008–2023 and a staggered difference-in-differences (DID) model to systematically examine the effect of the pilot policy on corporate green invention patent applications. The findings are as follows. (1) The low-carbon city pilot significantly promotes corporate green invention patent applications, raising them by about 5.6% on average for firms in pilot cities, which supports the “forcing” mechanism of the weak Porter hypothesis. (2) Financing constraints are the key threshold determining whether firms benefit: the policy effect is significantly positive for firms with lower financing constraints, whereas resource-constrained firms obtain no significant improvement. This study provides direct micro-level evidence for the “conditional validity” of the Porter hypothesis in the Chinese context: the policy produces a “forcing” effect on average, but the distribution of its benefits is moderated by firm resource endowments, and an innovation-offset threshold exists—firms that cross it benefit, while those that do not show no significant effect. The paper provides new evidence from Chinese firms on the relationship between environmental regulation and corporate green innovation and offers implications for differentiated environmental policy design.
- Open Access
- Article
Low-Carbon City Pilot Policy and Corporate Green Innovation: A Quasi-Natural Experiment Based on Chinese A-Share Listed Companies
- Shiyu Wang
Author Information
Received: 14 Aug 2026 | Revised: 23 Sep 2026 | Accepted: 08 Oct 2026 | Published: 14 Oct 2026
Abstract
Keywords
low-carbon city pilot | green innovation | Porter hypothesis | staggered difference-in-differences | firm heterogeneity
References
- 1.
Porter, M.E. America’s Green Strategy. Bus. Environ. 1996, 33, 1072.
- 2.
Porter, M.E.; van der Linde, C. Toward a New Conception of the Environment-Competitiveness Relationship. J. Econ. Perspect. 1995, 9, 97–118. https://doi.org/10.1257/jep.9.4.97.
- 3.
Palmer, K.; Oates, W.E.; Portney, P.R. Tightening Environmental Standards: The Benefit-Cost or the No-Cost Paradigm? J. Econ. Perspect. 1995, 9, 119–132. https://doi.org/10.1257/jep.9.4.119.
- 4.
Ambec, S.; Cohen, M.A.; Elgie, S.; et al. The Porter Hypothesis at 20: Can Environmental Regulation Enhance Innovation and Competitiveness? Rev. Environ. Econ. Policy 2013, 7, 2–22. https://doi.org/10.1093/reep/res016.
- 5.
Cheng, J.; Yi, J.; Dai, S.; et al. Can Low-Carbon City Construction Facilitate Green Growth? Evidence from China’s Pilot Low-Carbon City Initiative. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 231, 1158–1170. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.05.327.
- 6.
Yu, Y.; Zhang, N. Low-Carbon City Pilot and Carbon Emission Efficiency: Quasi-Experimental Evidence from China. Energy Econ. 2021, 96, 105125. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eneco.2021.105125.
- 7.
Chen, C.; Lin, Y.; Lv, N.; et al. Can Government Low-Carbon Regulation Stimulate Urban Green Innovation? Quasi-Experimental Evidence from China’s Low-Carbon City Pilot Policy. Appl. Econ. 2022, 54, 6559–6579. https://doi.org/10.1080/00036846.2022.2072466.
- 8.
Zhang, H.; Di Maria, C.; Ghezelayagh, B.; et al. Climate Policy in Emerging Economies: Evidence from China’s Low-Carbon City Pilot. J. Environ. Econ. Manag. 2024, 124, 102943. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeem.2024.102943.
- 9.
Zou, C.; Huang, Y.; Wu, S.; et al. Does “Low-Carbon City” Accelerate Urban Innovation? Evidence from China. Sustain. Cities Soc. 2022, 83, 103954. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2022.103954.
- 10.
Luo, Y.; Liu, Y.; Wang, D.; et al. Low-Carbon City Pilot Policy and Enterprise Low-Carbon Innovation–A Quasi-Natural Experiment from China. Econ. Anal. Policy 2024, 83, 204–222. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eap.2024.06.014.
- 11.
Qu, F.; Xu, L.; He, C. Leverage Effect or Crowding out Effect? Evidence from Low-Carbon City Pilot and Energy Technology Innovation in China. Sustain. Cities Soc. 2023, 91, 104423. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2023.104423.
- 12.
de Chaisemartin, C.; D’Haultfœuille, X. Two-Way Fixed Effects Estimators with Heterogeneous Treatment Effects. Am. Econ. Rev. 2020, 110, 2964–2996. https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.20181169.
- 13.
Goodman-Bacon, A. Difference-in-Differences with Variation in Treatment Timing. J. Econom. 2021, 225, 254–277. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeconom.2021.03.014.
- 14.
Baker, A.C.; Larcker, D.F.; Wang, C.C.Y. How Much Should We Trust Staggered Difference-in-Differences Estimates? J. Financ. Econ. 2022, 144, 370–395. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfineco.2022.01.004.
- 15.
Roth, J.; Sant’Anna, P.H.C.; Bilinski, A.; et al. What’s Trending in Difference-in-Differences? A Synthesis of the Recent Econometrics Literature. J. Econom. 2023, 235, 2218–2244. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeconom.2023.03.008.
- 16.
Popp, D. Induced Innovation and Energy Prices. Am. Econ. Rev. 2002, 92, 160–180. https://doi.org/10.1257/000282802760015658.
- 17.
Aghion, P.; Dechezleprêtre, A.; Hémous, D.; et al. Carbon Taxes, Path Dependency, and Directed Technical Change: Evidence from the Auto Industry. J. Political Econ. 2016, 124, 1–51. https://doi.org/10.1086/684581.
- 18.
Calel, R.; Dechezleprêtre, A. Environmental Policy and Directed Technological Change: Evidence from the European Carbon Market. Rev. Econ. Stat. 2016, 98, 173–191. https://doi.org/10.1162/rest_a_00470.
- 19.
Albrizio, S.; Kozluk, T.; Zipperer, V. Environmental Policies and Productivity Growth: Evidence across Industries and Firms. J. Environ. Econ. Manag. 2017, 81, 209–226. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeem.2016.06.002.
- 20.
Dechezleprêtre, A.; Sato, M. The Impacts of Environmental Regulations on Competitiveness. Rev. Environ. Econ. Policy 2017, 11, 183–206. https://doi.org/10.1093/reep/rex013.
- 21.
Chen, Q.; Chen, Z.; Liu, Z.; et al. Regulating Conglomerates: Evidence from an Energy Conservation Program in China. Am. Econ. Rev. 2025, 115, 408–447. https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.20211455.
- 22.
Xie, T.; Yuan, Y. Go with the Wind: Spatial Impacts of Environmental Regulations on Economic Activities in China. J. Dev. Econ. 2023, 164, 103139. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdeveco.2023.103139.
- 23.
Cheng, Y.; Du, K.; Yao, X. Stringent Environmental Regulation and Inconsistent Green Innovation Behavior: Evidence from Air Pollution Prevention and Control Action Plan in China. Energy Econ. 2023, 120, 106571. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eneco.2023.106571.
- 24.
Jaffe, A.B.; Palmer, K. Environmental Regulation and Innovation: A Panel Data Study. Rev. Econ. Stat. 1997, 79, 610–619. https://doi.org/10.1162/003465397557196.
- 25.
Jaffe, A.B.; Newell, R.G.; Stavins, R.N. Environmental Policy and Technological Change. Environ. Resour. Econ. 2002, 22, 41–70. https://doi.org/10.1023/a:1015519401088.
- 26.
Jaffe, A.B.; Newell, R.G.; Stavins, R.N. A Tale of Two Market Failures: Technology and Environmental Policy. Ecol. Econ. 2005, 54, 164–174. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2004.12.027.
- 27.
Brunnermeier, S.B.; Cohen, M.A. Determinants of Environmental Innovation in US Manufacturing Industries. J. Environ. Econ. Manag. 2003, 45, 278–293. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0095-0696(02)00058-x.
- 28.
Hamamoto, M. Environmental Regulation and the Productivity of Japanese Manufacturing Industries. Resour. Energy Econ. 2006, 28, 299–312. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.reseneeco.2005.11.001.
- 29.
Johnstone, N.; Haščič, I.; Popp, D. Renewable Energy Policies and Technological Innovation: Evidence Based on Patent Counts. Environ. Resour. Econ. 2010, 45, 133–155. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10640-009-9309-1.
- 30.
Horbach, J. Determinants of Environmental Innovation—New Evidence from German Panel Data Sources. Res. Policy 2008, 37, 163–173. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2007.08.006.
- 31.
Lanoie, P.; Laurent‐Lucchetti, J.; Johnstone, N.; et al. Environmental Policy, Innovation and Performance: New Insights on the Porter Hypothesis. J. Econ. Manag. Strategy 2011, 20, 803–842. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1530-9134.2011.00301.x.
- 32.
Lee, C.C.; Feng, Y.; Peng, D. A Green Path towards Sustainable Development: The Impact of Low-Carbon City Pilot on Energy Transition. Energy Econ. 2022, 115, 106343. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eneco.2022.106343.
- 33.
Pan, A.; Zhang, W.; Shi, X.; et al. Climate Policy and Low-Carbon Innovation: Evidence from Low-Carbon City Pilots in China. Energy Econ. 2022, 112, 106129. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eneco.2022.106129.
- 34.
Song, Y.; Bian, Z.; Ma, N.; et al. How Does the Low-Carbon City Pilot Policy Affect Enterprises’ Green Innovation? Empirical Evidence from the Context of China’s Digital Economy Development. Sustainability 2024, 16, 1760. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16051760.
- 35.
Li, Y.; Yaacob, M.H.; Xie, T. Effects of China’s Low Carbon Pilot City Policy on Corporate Green Innovation: Considering the Mediating Role of Public Environmental Concern. Financ. Res. Lett. 2024, 65, 105641. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.frl.2024.105641.
- 36.
Hadlock, C.J.; Pierce, J.R. New Evidence on Measuring Financial Constraints: Moving Beyond the KZ Index. Rev. Financ. Stud. 2010, 23, 1909–1940. https://doi.org/10.1093/rfs/hhq009.
- 37.
Ivanov, I.T.; Kruttli, M.S.; Watugala, S.W. Banking on Carbon: Corporate Lending and Cap-and-Trade Policy. Rev. Financ. Stud. 2024, 37, 1640–1684. https://doi.org/10.1093/rfs/hhad085.
- 38.
De Haas, R.; Martin, R.; Muûls, M.; et al. Managerial and Financial Barriers to the Green Transition. Manag. Sci. 2025, 71, 2890–2921. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.2023.00772.
- 39.
Amore, M.D.; Bennedsen, M. Corporate Governance and Green Innovation. J. Environ. Econ. Manag. 2016, 75, 54–72. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeem.2015.11.003.
- 40.
Sun, L.; Abraham, S. Estimating Dynamic Treatment Effects in Event Studies with Heterogeneous Treatment Effects. J. Econom. 2021, 225, 175–199. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeconom.2020.09.006.
- 41.
Borusyak, K.; Jaravel, X.; Spiess, J. Revisiting Event-Study Designs: Robust and Efficient Estimation. Rev. Econ. Stud. 2024, 91, 3253–3285. https://doi.org/10.1093/restud/rdae007.
- 42.
Callaway, B.; Sant’Anna, P.H.C. Difference-in-Differences with Multiple Time Periods. J. Econom. 2021, 225, 200–230. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeconom.2020.12.001.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Suite 4002 Level 4, 447 Collins Street, Melbourne, Victoria 3000, Australia
General Inquiries: info@sciltp.com