Drivers for the introduction of clean energy products and technologies: differences and

similarities among key industry sectors in the EU and Japan

Masachika Suzuki
Graduate School of Global Environmental Studies, Sophia University
7-1 Kioi-cho, Chiyoda-ku, Tokyo, 102-8554 JAPAN
Abstract
Keywords: Clean energy, corporate strategy, sustainable reporting, isomorphism, country of
origin effect
Corresponding author: Masachika Suzuki
Address: Graduate School of Global Environmental Studies, Sophia University
7-1 Kioi-cho, Chiyoda-ku, Tokyo, 102-8554 JAPAN
Email: suzuki@genv.sophia.ac.jp
Introduction1
Introduction of clean energy products and technologies has increasingly become a key strategic
and managerial issue for firms in various industry sectors. Many firms report their initiative and
performance of clean energy in their corporate sustainability reports. There are substantial
research suggesting both tangible and intangible benefits for the firms that have successfully
adopted clean energy technologies including reduction of operational cost, mitigation of
regulatory risk, successful marketing products and technologies among energy cost conscious
customers and enhancing their corporate brand.
This paper addresses corporate strategy on the introduction of clean energy products and
technologies. Clean energy products and technologies discussed in this paper include both
renewable energy technologies and energy efficiency improvement products and technologies.
In particular, the paper suggests investigating whether or not there are differences and
similarities between the EU and Japan with respect to the drivers for the introduction of clean
energy products and technologies. Some companies recognize clean energy as attractive
industry opportunities, while other companies promote them as part of their corporate social
responsibility initiatives. The result of this study contributes to the theoretical discussion
whether we can observe isomorphism or country of origin effect in reported corporate
strategy in the introduction of clean energy products and technologies.
1.

Focus of this study: clean energy products and technologies

Clean energy products and technologies include both renewable energy and energy efficiency
improvement products and technologies. The IEA (International Energy Agency) report entitled
Tracking Clean Energy Progress 2013 addresses key clean energy technologies such as
renewable energy, gas-fired power generation, electric and hybrid-electric vehicles as well as
energy efficiency improvement technologies in buildings and technologies use for the smart grid
system (IEA 2013). According to the report, carbon capture and storage technologies are also
recognized as clean energy technologies (IEA 2013).
The ways that firms utilize clean energy products and technologies vary among different

1 Some parts of the paper (mainly, Section 3 through Section 5) were presented at the 16th Conference of
the European Roundtable on Sustainable Production and Consumption (ERSCP) in June 2013.

industry sectors. For the energy-intensive industry sectors such as oil and gas, chemical, steel,
cement and pulp and paper productions, manufacturing is the main process where firms tend to
introduce clean energy products and technologies since there are large potentials in reducing the
use of fossil-fuel based energy in this process. For the firms in the consumer product industry
sectors such as automobiles and electronics, addressing clean energy products and technologies
for their end-users is more relevant since the energy use at the consumption stage is much larger
than the manufacturing process. For the retail industry sector, the integration of clean energy
technologies into the supply chain management is essential in reducing energy use and cost in
the logistics or transportation process.
As the introduction of clean energy products and technologies has increasingly become a key
strategic and management issue for firms, there have been substantial research on the utilization
of clean energy products and technologies. However, in the study of business management,
corporate strategy on clean energy products and technologies has not received much attention,
especially, compared to environmental strategies such as climate change strategy. Climate
change, in fact, has attracted a significant level of interests among business management
scholars since the 1990s. On the other hand, the corporate strategy on clean energy products and
technologies has only discussed until now as part of companys climate change strategy.
2.

Structure of this paper

The first part of this paper illustrates theoretical discussions on corporate strategy. This will help
us to understand how and why firms introduce clean energy products and technologies. Section
3 demonstrates that according to previous research in business management, there are internal
and external factors leading to the formulation of corporate strategy. One important internal
factor is the level of firms resources and capabilities. Some scholar argues that the firms with
larger resources and capabilities tend to address environmental (or clean energy) issues more
proactively.
While the internal factors are often classified as firm-specific factors, the external factors can
be called as home country factors. Sections 4 and 5 elaborate discussions among researchers
on the consequences of receiving the external pressures upon firms. Based on the discussions,
some scholars might argue that between European and Japanese firms, for example, there are
convergent trends on the corporate clean energy strategy since there is the pressure to handle
clean energy issue in the global scale. On the other hand, some scholars might claim that as long
as there are different sets of regulations as well as social expectations for clean energy in the EU
and Japan, corporate strategy on the topic would remain divergent between the two regions.
On the basis of the theoretical discussions from Section 3 through 5, Section 6 elaborates the
drivers for the introduction of clean energy products and technologies. It attempts to classify
different drivers discussed among previous research. The drivers include possibility for cost
reductions and profit making opportunities, mitigation of regulatory risk, successful marketing
products and technologies among energy cost conscious customers and enhancing their
corporate brand. Some firms promote clean energy products and technologies as new products
that have not launched yet in new markets. In this case, these firms recognize clean energy
technologies as attractive business opportunities, while other companies promote them as part of
their corporate social responsibility initiatives.
Section 7 summarizes discussions from Section 3 to 6. In addition, it suggests a design of an
empirical study that examines similarities and differences in the drivers for the introduction of
clean energy between the EU and Japan. The study investigates whether or not there are

convergent or divergent trends in corporate clean energy strategy between the EU and Japan.
The result of the study may contribute to the discussion whether or not we can observe
isomorphism or country of origin effect between the EU and Japan with respect to corporate
clean energy strategy.
The last part of this paper suggests a possibility of further study. It discusses a relationship
between the introduction of clean energy products and technologies and the improvement of
financial performance. It argues that there may be a positive relationship between the
introduction of clean energy and financial performance. If this is the case, it may become a clear
business case for firms to work on clean energy products and technologies.
3.

How do the firms make a decision on the introduction of clean energy technologies?

If the introduction of clean energy products and technologies is perceived as a key strategic
issue in business operations, how do firms make a decision about it? While corporate energy
strategy is relatively a new research area, there are two groups of research initiatives in
environmental business and management useful in exploring this question. One group addresses
internal factors such as the level of firms resources and capabilities, while the other, including
institutional scholars, looks into the influences from the external environment such as
government regulations and pressures from non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and the
civil society. Those who look into firms resources and capabilities often associate the level of
environmental initiatives with the size of the resources of a firm. According to their argument,
the firms with more resources and capabilities tend to address environmental issues more
proactively. According to Rivera and Delmas (2004), the other group of scholars who look into
internal factors highlights how top managers environmental beliefs, values, and attitudes play a
critical role in determining corporate environmental management choices (Cordano and Frieze
2000; Egri and Herman 2000; Anderson and Bateman 2000; Winn and Angel 2000). Some
studies in this group of scholars also indicate that pro-environmental attitudes and commitment
by top managers positively affect the environmental behavior of middle and lower-level
employees (Ramus and Steger 2000; Egri and Herman 2000).
On the other hand, the institutional scholars recognizing the influences from the external
environment in business decision-making heed attention to stakeholders surrounding the firms.
Sharma and Henriques (2005) describe, as a common view of the institutional scholars, that
stakeholders who are important, primary, or considered salient by managers in terms of their
power, legitimacy, and urgency influence organizational strategies (Sharma and Henriques,
2005). In particular, these scholars have extensively researched the relationship between
government regulations and corporate responses to the environmental regulations (Kolk 2000;
Pinkse 2006). Henriques and Sadorsky (1996) conducted an empirical study to test their
hypothesis that environmental regulation represents a main determinant of managerial action to
deal with environmental concerns among Canadian firms (Henriques and Sadorsky 1996). They
found that government regulations are the most significant source of pressure on firms in the
development of environmental strategy.
Apart from the pressures from the government, there is an empirical sign that firms attach
importance to other stakeholders in formulating their environmental strategy (Buysse and
Verbeke 2003; Neu et al., 1998; Fineman and Clarke 1996; Christmann, 2004). The abovementioned empirical study conducted by Henriques and Sadorsky (2006), for example,
demonstrates that in addition to government regulations, pressures from different stakeholder
groups are playing an important role in the formation of environmental strategy among the
Canadian firms that they analyzed (Henriques and Sadorsky 1996).

4.

What are the consequences of receiving external pressures? : Convergent trends

Section 3 illustrates that institutional scholars pay an attention to the influences from the
external environment in business decision-making. What are the consequences of receiving
external pressures? Some institutional scholars consider that the firms in the same
organizational field begin to adopt similar structures and strategies, yielding to common
pressures for change (Hoffman 2001). This is so-called isomorphism. The above-mentioned
DiMaggio and Powell paper (1983) introduced the concept of isomorphism in 1983 (DiMaggio
and Powell 1983).
The analysis of convergent trends among organizational strategies and structures is
subsequently expanded to the corporate environmental arena. An example of such analysis is
Kolks research to examine the environmental reporting by multinational firms among the
United States, Europe and Japan. It investigates whether any convergence in environmental
report is observed in the triad region. She concludes that considering Europe as a whole, there is
a convergence between Europe and Japan, while the differences between the United States and
Europe and within Europe have increased (Kolk 2005). Kolks research also indicates that the
existence and degree of convergence hinge upon a subject area in corporate environmental
strategy.
There are industry-specific researches examining whether or not there is convergence among
corporate responses to climate change. The industry sectors with a particular research focus in
research are oil and automotive industry sectors. Kolk, Levy and Rothenberg conducted a series
of research to highlight strategic similarities and differences between the US and European
firms in the sectors (Kolk and Levy 2004; Levy and Rothenberg 1999; Levy and Kolk 2002;
Levy and Rothenberg 2002). In the case of the oil industry, Kolk and Levy (2002 and 2004)
found that while there are remarkable differences between the US and European firms in the
initial corporate reactions to the climate change issues, convergent pressures predominates as
the issues mature (Kolk and Levy 2004; Levy and Kolk 2002).
5.

The other trend in corporate environmental strategy: Divergent trends

Albeit with the convergent pressures, there is a great degree of differences among firms in
corporate environmental strategy. What are the sources of the heterogeneity? Indeed, the
existence of the heterogeneity is normal, as every firm has different corporate history, culture
and philosophy as well as business operations and marketing positioning. According to the
institutional scholars, firms are also subject to divergent pressures from the external
environment. For example, the regulatory pressures from the government tend to be formulated
in the unique local regulatory culture and history. The characteristics of regulatory pressures and
the way firms respond to such pressures are often country-specific (or region-specific). The
fashions that stakeholders influence firms also seemingly vary from one country to another. The
natures of the roles and powers that stakeholders exercise are closely connected to the social and
cultural contexts of the country or the region.
Sethi and Elango (1999) label the home country factors as country of origin effects (Sethi and
Elango 1999). According to Sethi and Elango, the home country factors consist of 1) economic
and physical resources and industrial capabilities, 2) cultural values and institutional norms; and
3) national governments economic and industrial policies. Sethi and Elango (1999) contend that
those home country factors provide a powerful influence on firms capabilities and strategies
and create divergent pressures on firms in the formation of their corporate strategy (Sethi and

Elango 1999).
Some scholars challenge the notion of globalization and contend that firms operations and
strategies are attributable to the local environment (Kolk and Levy 2004). They dismiss the idea
that economic globalization is contributing to an emergence of stateless firms (Kolk and Levy
2004). They maintain that few multinational firms are truly global and most of the firms are
regionally-oriented, and therefore strategic management of the firms should be regional-focused
(Rugman and Brain 2003). In the publication titled Global or Stateless Corporations Are
National Firms with International Operations, Hu (1992) examines the level of
internationalization among the US, European and Japanese firms in terms of their ownership
and control, nationalities of the executive managers and legal nationality (Hu 1992). He
concludes that with a few exceptions, all firms that he analyzed are regarded as national firms
with international operations. According to Hu, corporate strategies and operations are deeply
rooted in the home country environment.
Baron and others contend that the business environment is composed of market and non-market
components. According to Baron (1995 and 1997), the non-market components include
interactions intermediated by the public, stakeholders, government, the media and public
institutions. Baron argues that non-market environment is to an important degree nation-specific
and it depends on the institutions and cultures of individual countries as well as on the
organization of interests in the countries (Baron, 1995; Baron 1997). The non-market
components that Baron discusses seem to be pointing out the second and third home country
factors that Sethi and Elango (1999) demonstrate: cultural values and institutional norms and
national governments economic and industrial policies. The differences between the US and
European institutional norms is an example of the former. The Japanese METIs (Ministry of
Economy, Trade and Industry) industrial policy is an example of the latter.
These arguments suggest that there are remarkable local pressures that lead to heterogeneity
among corporate strategies. Kolk and Levy (2004) examined the home country factors in the
formation of corporate climate change strategy (Kolk and Levy 2004). They analyzed a
significance of the factors in the automobile and oil industry sectors in the United States and
Europe. The home country factors that they identified include 1) societal concerns about climate
change, 2) societal views on corporate responsibilities, 3) regulatory culture, 4) ability of firms
to influence regulation, 5) national environmental policies and 6) national industrial promotion
strategies (Kolk and Levy 2004).
6.

Key drivers for the introduction of clean energy technologies

The discussions from Section 3 through 5 indicate that there are both internal factors and
external pressures for firms to work on clean energy products and technologies. This section
elaborates the drivers (internal and external) more specifically for corporate managers to
consider in making strategic or managerial decisions on clean energy.
One common driver identified among previous research relates to regulatory support. Many
studies demonstrate results showing that firms often take advantage of economic benefits
associated with an introduction of regulations such as feed-in-tariff program, tax incentives,
renewable energy portfolios and clean energy funds (Bird et al. 2005; Foxon et al. 2005; Geller
et al. 2004 Menz 2005; Painuly 2001; Shrimali and Kniefe 2011; Wang and Chen 2010; Wiser
and Mark Bolinger 2005). For example, Burer and Wustenhagen (2009) illustrate that all other
things being equal, investors in our sample perceived feed-in tariffs to be the most effective
renewable energy policy (Burer and Wustenhagen 2009). Moreover, de la Tour et al. (2010),

looking at the successful adoption of the on-grid PV system, argues that the system has been
entirely driven by incentive policies initially implemented in a limited number of industrialized
countries (de la Tour et al. 2010). Another example is a wide diffusion of wind power generation
in the US. Kaldellis and Zafirakis (2011) state that economic instruments including feed-intariffs and investment and production tax incentives are the primary drivers for the growth of
wind energy market (Kaldellis and Zafirakis 2011).
Another key driver relates to the fact that, with the improvement of the technologies, the cost
for the introduction of the technologies falls down sometimes to the level where corporate
managers perceive significant cost reductions of purchasing electricity. In addition, the
corporate managers sometimes recognize an opportunity even to make profit through it. Many
researchers have observed this trend among firms (Dinica 2006; Gross et al. 2003; Kaldellis and
Zafirakis 2011). Gross et al. argues that the market growth take place if costs are to fall to levels
that will ensure competitiveness with the lowest cost fossil fuel alternatives (Gross et al. 2003).
Kaldellis and Zafirakis (1011) found this trend in reality that the wind energy production cost is
found to be comparable with the respective of conventional fossil fueled generation methods,
even without internalizing the externalities (Kaldellis and Zafirakis 2011). Dinica (2006) states
that although some developers may be mainly interested in self generations, others will invest
motivated by some strategic considerationssuch as new technological designs testing, green
image considerations, local business opportunity or ideology. Overall, commercial motivation
will
be
the
main
driver
to
invest
(Dinica
2006).
In contrast, some scholars argue that even when firms do not expect immediate financial returns,
they sometimes pursue clean energy projects. This is particularly the case when they project a
long-term intangible benefits through it (Byrne et al. 2007; Ginsberg and Bloom 2004; Menz
2005; Zeng et al. 2010). An example of prime importance is strong interests among customers
for the clean energy products and technologies. Zeng et al. (2010) demonstrates that the highcost scheme activities, for example, using energy efficient and clean technologies or using
renewable resources as raw materials, require significant financial investment but may not result
in immediate economic benefit. However, these activities are often more visible and easily
communicated to stakeholders, therefore conductive to improve corporate reputation,
shareholder confidence and market share (Zeng et al. 2010). A study conducted by Byrne et al.
(2007) observe this trend among power generation firms in the US where firms provide options
to purchase green power for customers and the firms are responding to the needs (Byrne et al.
2007). Based on a result of survey study, Ginsberg and Bloom (2004) recognize that overall
there are demand by consumers for ethical and green products in recent years (Ginsberg and
Bloom, 2004).
Beyond customer responses, some firms consider the impacts of adoption of clean energy
products and technologies upon their brand image (Gonzlez 2005; Paladino and Pandit 2012).
Gonzlez (2005) examined the pulp and paper industry to analyze factors influencing clean
technology adoption and found that a better corporate image is the main reason for adoption,
together with regulatory pressures (Gonzlez 2005). Paladino and Pandit (2012) argue that a
firm can differentiate the brand on the basis of its environmental attributes by positioning the
brand on its green attributes. A firm can increase its image and a consumers connectedness with
a brand and their affinity to it by branding itself as green (Paladino and Pandit 2012).
Apart from the drivers described above, scholars observe other drivers for firms to incorporate
clean energy products and technologies into their business strategy. Some firms may do it as
part of their CSR initiatives (Prahalad and Brugmann, 2007). Some firms recognize the potential
to enter new markets through clean energy products and technologies (Prahalad and Brugmann,

2007; Southworth 2009). Some firms address energy and environmental concerns associated
with fossil-fuel based technologies and adopt clean energy products and technologies with less
concerns in this area (Lloyd and Subbarao 2009; Moore and Wustenhagen 2004). At this point,
Lloyd and Subbarao (2009) argue that global energy and environmental security concerns are
currently driving penetration of renewable energy alternatives.
7.

Research framework for the analysis of the key drivers for the introduction of clean
energy products and technologies

Section 2 through 6 illustrated theoretical discussions on corporate strategy for the introduction
of clean energy products and technologies. Figure 1 summarizes those discussions below:

Figure 1: Corporate strategy for the introduction of clean energy products and technologies

Based on the theories discussed above, this paper proposes an empirical study to examine
similarities and differences with respect to the drivers for the introduction of clean energy
between the EU and Japan. The study is designed to test whether there are convergent or
divergent trends in corporate clean energy strategy between the EU and Japan. The result of the
study contributes to the discussions presented in Section 4 and 5 whether or not we can observe
isomorphism or country of origin effect in reported corporate strategy in the introduction of
clean energy products and technologies.

The analysis is based on the publicly available data reported by firms including corporate
sustainability reports as well as data submitted to the Carbon Disclosure Project (CDP). As for
European firms, the coverage of the analysis are the firms included in the FTSE 100 in England,
the CAC 40 in France, the DAX in Germany, the Swiss Market Index in Switzerland, and the
Euronext 100 in Europe. As for Japanese firms, the firms listed under the Nikkei 225 are the
targets of the analysis. Many firms in both regions publish a sustainability report and provide
data to the CDP. While the CDP is designed to ask firms about their climate change strategy, it
also addresses some questions about their clean energy strategy in its questionnaire to the firms.
8.

Further research: relationship between the introduction of clean energy technologies

and improvement of financial performance

As described in Section 6, there is a growing understanding that the introduction of clean energy
brings both tangible and intangible values to firms. Harmon addresses that green energy
adoption may become a key element of strategies to ensure long-term economic growth
(Harmon and Cowan 2009). If this is the case, there may be strong demand for further research
to investigate the possible positive link between the introduction of clean energy products and
technologies and the improvement of financial performance.
In reality, however, the research examining the positive link between the introduction of clean
energy technologies and improvement of financial performance tends to focus on the cash flow
analysis at the project specific level. There have been a number of studies, on the other hand,
that attempt to examine a positive relationship between the introduction of environmental
management and financial performance at the corporate strategy level. An example is a study
conducted by Porter and Vandelinde exploring the link between environmental regulations and
environmental as well as financial performance. They contend appropriately designed
environmental regulations can stimulate technological innovation and provide a basis for first
mover advantage in the international market (Porter 1990; Porter 1991; Porter and Vanderlinde
1995a; Porter and Vanderlinde 1995b). According to their argument, early adoption of strict
environmental standards may lead to innovation offsets that lower costs or improve quality
and ultimately lead to net benefits for firms. While some empirical studies have shown
conflicting evidence on the relationship, some empirical studies indicate the positive
relationship between environmental performance and financial performance (Hart, S. and G.
Ahuja, 1996; Russo, M. and P. Fouts. 1997). Furthermore, some studies address that green
strategies could enhance firms competitive advantage by attracting environmentally aware
consumers (Hart 1995; Sharma and Vredenburg 1998; Reinhardt 1998; Rivera, J. and Delmas,
M. 2004). There have been studies indicating good environmental performance lead to better
corporate image and brand as well.
Another direction of further research is to explore the linkage between the types of drivers
discussed in Section 4 and better financial performance for firms. If it is possible to identify the
types of the drivers leading to better financial performance, it may provide the rational basis for
firms to invest resources into the area of the drivers.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
This work was supported by the Grant-in-Aid for Young Scientist (B) from Japan Society for
the Promotion of Science (24730355). The authors wish to thank for the support.
REFERENCES

Baron, D. P. (1995). Integrated strategy - market and nonmarket components. California

Management Review, 37, 47-65.
Baron, D. P. (1997). Integrated strategy, trade policy, and global competition. California
Management Review, 39.
Bird, L., Bolinger, M., Gagliano, T., Wiser, R., Brown, M., and Parsons, B. (2005). Policies and
market factors driving wind power development in the United States. Energy Policy,
33(11), 13971407.
Burer, M. J., and Wustenhagen, R. (2009). Which renewable energy policy is a venture
capitalists best friend? Empirical evidence from a survey of international cleantech
investors. Energy Policy, 37(12), 49975006.
Buysse, K. and Verbeke, A. (2003). Proactive environmental strategies: A stakeholder
management perspective. Strategic Management Journal, 24, 453-470.
Byrne, J., Hughes, K., Rickerson, W., and Kurdgelashvili, L. (2007). American policy conflict in
the greenhouse: Divergent trends in federal, regional, state, and local green energy and
climate change policy. Energy Policy, 35(9), 45554573.
Christmann, P. (2004). Multinational companies and the natural environment: Determinants of
global environmental policy standardization. Academy of Management Journal, 47, 747760.
Cordano, M. and Frieze I. (2000). Pollution reduction preferences of U.S. environmental
managers: Applying Ajzens theory of planned behavior. Academy of Management Journal
43, 4, 627-641.
De la Tour, A., Glachant, M., & Mnire, Y. (2011). Innovation and international technology
transfer: The case of the Chinese photovoltaic industry. Energy Policy, 39(2), 761770.
Dimaggio, P. J. and Powell, W. W. (1983). The iron cage revisited: institutional isomorphism
and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review, 48, 147160.
Dinica, V. (2006). Support systems for the diffusion of renewable energy technologiesan
investor perspective. Energy Policy, 34(4), 461480.
Egri, C. and Herman, S. (2000). Leadership in the North American environmental sector:
Values, leadership styles, and contexts of environmental leaders and their organizations.
Academy of Management Journal 43, 571-604.
Fineman, S. and Clarke, K. (1996). Green stakeholders: Industry interpretations and response.
Journal of Management Studies, 33, 715-730.
Foxon, T. J., Gross, R., Chase, a., Howes, J., Arnall, a., & Anderson, D. (2005). UK innovation
systems for new and renewable energy technologies: drivers, barriers and systems failures.
Energy Policy, 33(16), 21232137.
Geller, H., Schaeffer, R., Szklo, A., & Tolmasquim, M. (2004). Policies for advancing energy

efficiency and renewable energy use in Brazil. Energy Policy, 32(12), 14371450.
Ginsberg, J.M. and Bloom, P.N. (2004). Choosing the Right Green Marketing Strategy, MIT
Sloane Management Review.
Gonzlez, R. (2005). Analysing the Factors Influencing Clean Technology Adoption: A Study of
the Spanish Pulp and Paper Industry. Business Strategy and the Environment, 37(1), 2037.
Gross, R., Leach, M., & Bauen, A. (2003). Progress in renewable energy. Environment
International, 29(1), 10522.
Harmon, R. R., & Cowan, K. R. (2009). A multiple perspectives view of the market case for
green energy. Technological Forecasting & Social Change, 76(1), 204213.
Hart, S. (1995). A natural resource based view of the firm. Academy of Management Review
20, 986-1014.
Hart, S. and Ahuja G. (1996). Does it pay to be green? An empirical examination of the
relationship between emission reduction and firm performance. Business Strategy and the
Environment 5, 30-37.
Henriques, I. and Sadorsky, P. (1996). The Determinants of an Environmentally Responsive
Firm: An Empirical Approach. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 30,
381-395.
Hu, Y. S. (1992). Global or Stateless Corporations Are National Firms with International
Operations. California Management Review, 34, 107-126.
IEA (2013), Tracking Clean Energy Progress 2013 IEA Input to the Clean Energy Ministerial.
Kaldellis, J. K., & Zafirakis, D. (2011). The wind energy (r)evolution: A short review of a long
history. Renewable Energy, 36(7), 18871901.
Kolk, A. (2000). Economics of Environmental Management, Harlow, Financial Times Prentice
Hall.
Kolk, A. and Levy, L. (2004). Multinationals and global climate change: Issue for the
automotive and oil industries. Multinationals, Environment and Global Competition, 9,
171-193.
Levy, L. and Kolk, A. (2002). Strategic responses to global climate change: Conflicting
pressures on multinationals in the oil industry. Business and Politics, 4, 275-300.
Levy, L. and Rothenberg, S. (1999). Corporate Strategy and Climate Change: Heterogeneity and
Change in the Global Automobile Industry. Belfer Center for Science and International
Affairs (BCSIA) Discussion Paper E-99-13. Cambridge, MA, Environment and Natural
Resources Program, Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University.
Levy, D. L. and Rothenberg, S. (2002). Heterogeneity and change in environmental strategy:
Technological and political responses to climate change in the automobile industry. IN A.,
H. & M., V. (Eds.) Organizations, Policy and the Natural Environment: Institutional and

10

Strategic Perspectives. Stanford, Stanford: Stanford University Press.

Lloyd, B., & Subbarao, S. (2009). Development challenges under the Clean Development
Mechanism (CDM)Can renewable energy initiatives be put in place before peak oil?
Energy Policy, 37(1), 237245.
Menz, F. C. (2005). Green electricity policies in the United States: case study. Energy Policy,
33(18), 23982410.
Moore, B., & Wustenhagen, R. (2004). Innovative and Sustainable Energy Technologies: The
Role of Venture Capital. Business Strategy and the Environment, 13(4), 235245.
Neu, D., Warsame, H. and Pedwell, K. (1998). Managing public impressions: Environmental
disclosures in annual reports. Accounting Organizations and Society, 23, 265-282.
Painuly, J. . (2001). Barriers to renewable energy penetration; a framework for analysis.
Renewable Energy, 24(1), 7389.
Paladino, A., & Pandit, A. P. (2012). Competing on service and branding in the renewable
electricity sector. Energy Policy, 45(2012), 378388.
Prahalad, C. K., & Brugmann, J. (2007). Cocreating Business s New Social Compact. Harvard
Business Review, (0702), 114.
Pinkse, J. (2006). Business Responses to Global Climate Change. Amsterdam Graduate
Business School. Amsterdam, University of Amsterdam.
Porter, M. E. (1990). The competitive advantage of nations. Harvard Business Review, 68, 7393.
Porter, M. E. (1991). America green strategy. Scientific American, 264, 168-168.
Porter, M. E. and Vanderlinde, C. (1995a). Green and competitive - ending the stalemate.
Harvard Business Review, 73, 120-134.
Porter, M. E. and Vanderlinde, C. (1995b). Toward a new conception of the environmentcompetitiveness relationship. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 9, 97-118.
Ramus, C. and Steger, U. (2000). The roles of supervisory support behaviors and environmental
policy in employee eco-initiatives at leading edge European companies. Academy of
Management Journal 43, 605-626.
Reinhardt, F.L. (1998). Environmental product differentiation: implications for corporate
strategy. California Management Review 40, 4, 43-73
Rivera, J., and Delmas, M. (2004). Business and environmental policy: An introduction. Human
Ecology Review, Vol. 11, No. 3, winter 2004, 230-234.
Rugman, A. M. and Brain, C. (2003). multinational Enterprises are regional, not global.
Multinational Business Review, 11, 3-12.

11

Russo, M. and Fouts, P. (1997). A resource-based perspective on corporate environmental

performance and profitability. Academy of Management Journal 40, 534-559.
Sethi, S. P. and Elango, B. (1999). The influence of "country of origin" on multinational
corporation global strategy: A conceptual framework. Journal of International
Management, 5, 285-298.
Sharma, S. and Vredenburg, H. (1998). Proactive corporate environmental strategy and the
development of competitively valuable organizational capabilities. Strategic Management
Journal 19,729-753.
Sharma, S. and Henriques, I. (2005). Stakeholder influences on sustainability practices in the
Canadian forest products industry. Strategic Management Journal, 26, 159-180.
Shrimali, G., & Kniefel, J. (2011). Are government policies effective in promoting deployment
of renewable electricity resources? Energy Policy, 39(9), 47264741.
Southworth, K. (2009). Corporate voluntary action: A valuable but incomplete solution to
climate change and energy security challenges. Policy and Society, 27(4), 329350.
Wang, Q., & Chen, Y. (2010). Barriers and opportunities of using the clean development
mechanism to advance renewable energy development in China. Renewable and
Sustainable Energy Reviews, 14(7), 19891998.
Winn, M. I. and Angel, L. C. (2000). Toward a process model of corporate greening,
Organization Studies 21, 6, 1119-1147.
Wiser, R., & Bolinger, M. (2005). Balancing Cost and Risk: The Treatment of Renewable
Energy in Western Utility Resource. The Electricity Journal.
Zeng, S. X., Meng, X. H., Yin, H. T., Tam, C. M., & Sun, L. (2010). Impact of cleaner
production on business performance. Journal of Cleaner Production, 18(10-11), 975983.

12