Meta-analysis examines how environmental regulations impact green innovation performance, suggesting regulatory alignment for better outcomes.
This meta-analysis synthesizes evidence from 89 empirical studies to examine how distinct environmental regulation types influence green innovation performance (GIP). Grounded in Institutional Theory, the Resource-Based View, and the Porter Hypothesis, the study classifies regulations as command-and-control, market-based, voluntary/self-regulation, or governance-related, and innovation outcomes as patenting, process efficiency, market commercialization, or composite performance. Using a PRISMA-compliant approach and 160 effect sizes from 273,505 firm-level observations, the overall analysis confirms a statistically significant positive relationship between ER and GIP. Voluntary schemes yield the strongest innovation gains, while prescriptive and market-based instruments also perform well under credible enforcement. Patent and efficiency innovations are more responsive to policy signals than market-based outcomes, which often stall without complementary demand-side support. The study offers an evidence-based framework to guide policymakers in aligning regulatory instruments with specific innovation goals, institutional contexts, and sectoral priorities, maximizing both environmental and economic returns.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Kembabazi et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: