European companies forced to adopt the pro-environmental tax scaled back investment by nearly 1% of total assets
In deciding to impose taxes on emissions it’s important to consider their consequences for companies, the economy and the environment, as well as to determine whether polluters do actually pay or become greener as a result.
Image: Shutterstock
Since Finland introduced the world’s first tax on carbon emissions in 1990, the levy has formed part of policymakers’ toolkits for mitigating climate change: make the polluters pay, and they will change their behavior to contaminate less. In the process, governments will bring in extra tax revenue, ideally earmarked for environment-related projects.
As the search for climate solutions grows more urgent, the World Bank at the end of 2023 registered 37 carbon tax initiatives worldwide, 27 with national scope and 10 at smaller regional levels. A decade earlier, only a dozen countries, mostly in northern Europe, had them. Even today, neither the U.S. nor China has adopted a carbon tax; in total, only 5.6% of estimated greenhouse gas emissions worldwide are covered by them.
But in deciding to impose taxes on emissions it’s important to consider their consequences for companies, the economy and the environment, as well as to determine whether polluters do actually pay or become greener as a result.
Research by IESE’s Martin Jacob, together with Kira Zerwer of WHU-Otto Beisheim School of Management, indicates emission taxes may unexpectedly undermine capital investment while producing limited environmental benefits. The research finds that companies invested less after the introduction of a tax — not because they wanted to curtail pollution but because of the financial burden of the heavier taxation. Particularly impacted were companies unable to pass the extra tax costs on to consumers or suppliers.
“Emission taxes might not have the desired impact,” the study finds, “suggesting that policy makers may utilize other tools from their regulatory toolbox to tackle polluting firms and make them more efficient actors in climate policy.”
[This article has been reproduced with permission from IESE Business School. www.iese.edu/ Views expressed are personal.]