碳市场约束、低碳技术配置与集团公司减排

Carbon-market Regulation, Low-carbon Technology Allocation, and Emission Reductions in Conglomerates

罗志鹏,胡欣怡,罗良文

2026 第 52 卷 第 07 期 页码 109-123

DOI: 10.16538/j.cnki.jfe.20260523.202

PDF全文下载 HTML全文

语音预告

摘要

当前碳市场的监管对象以达到特定碳排放门槛的头部企业为主,而这些企业通常隶属于大型集团公司。为考察政策的溢出效应,本文首先手工整理出碳市场试点的受监管企业名单,并据此厘清其所属集团公司的关联网络;在此基础上,利用全国税收调查数据,实证检验了碳市场试点政策对集团公司整体的影响。研究发现:(1)碳市场试点政策促使受监管企业在维持总产出稳定的同时实现碳减排,进而降低了碳排放强度,这表明其碳减排主要由技术效应驱动,而非成本效应引发的产出收缩所致。(2)碳市场试点政策对受监管企业所属集团公司也会产生正外部性,促使集团内未受监管的子公司在保持碳排放不变的情况下扩大总产出,从而实现碳排放强度下降。(3)对技术效应的进一步研究表明,碳市场试点政策虽显著促进了受监管企业及其所属集团整体的低碳技术购买,却相对抑制了技术出售与自主研发的积极性。在年度履约期限紧迫、市场范围有限的条件下,企业短期内或倾向于“以购代研”,并存在将减排压力转嫁于集团外部的策略性动机。基于上述结论,本文从稳步扩大碳市场覆盖范围、提升政策效能、强化低碳技术研发与扩散激励机制三个方面提炼出相应的政策启示。

The carbon market is an important instrument for China to advance climate governance. Unlike regional environmental policies, the carbon market has a clear firm-level regulatory boundary defined by compliance lists. Many regulated firms, however, are part of large conglomerates. Through ownership networks and the internal allocation of production and technology, regulation may affect not only regulated firms but also unregulated affiliates. Meanwhile, the carbon market imposes short-term compliance pressure, whereas low-carbon R&D has a longer and riskier cycle. This mismatch may encourage firms to purchase existing technologies rather than develop new ones, or to retain technologies for compliance advantages rather than diffuse them. A deeper investigation of these issues can shed light on potential directions for improving the institutional design of China’s carbon market.

This paper manually collects the lists of firms regulated by China’s pilot carbon emissions trading markets, maps their conglomerate networks, and matches them with the 2008–2016 National Tax Survey. A two-period model developed in this paper shows that carbon-market regulation affects firm output and emissions through two channels: a cost effect caused by higher effective energy-use costs and a technology effect generated by low-carbon technology adjustment. Empirical analysis uses a DID design to test these mechanisms. The results show that the policy reduces regulated firms’ carbon emissions and carbon intensity by 24.30% and 28.57%, respectively, without significantly reducing output. For unregulated affiliates, output rises by 18.61% and carbon intensity falls by 27.61%, while emissions do not increase significantly. This indicates that emission reductions are primarily driven by technological improvement rather than output contraction, and the carbon market generates positive spillover effects within conglomerates. Mechanism testing based on low-carbon patent applications, transfers, and licenses shows that the policy promotes purchases of low-carbon technologies while suppressing low-carbon R&D and sales.

This paper makes the following contributions: First, it identifies the policy shock using actual lists of regulated firms rather than treating all firms in pilot regions as regulated, providing more credible firm-level evidence for carbon-market governance. Second, it extends the study of environmental policy spillovers beyond regional and supply-chain channels to conglomerate ownership networks, broadening the theoretical understanding of carbon-market policy externalities. Third, it shifts the analysis of low-carbon policy responses from “whether firms innovate” to “how they allocate technologies”, highlighting the importance of reconciling short-term compliance incentives with long-term R&D and technology diffusion.

参考文献

1 白俊红, 张艺璇, 卞元超. 创新驱动政策是否提升城市创业活跃度——来自国家创新型城市试点政策的经验证据[J]. 中国工业经济, 2022, (6): 61−78. DOI:10.3969/j.issn.1006-480X.2022.06.004
2 陈诗一, 祁毓. “双碳”目标约束下应对气候变化的中长期财政政策研究[J]. 中国工业经济, 2022, (5): 5−23. DOI:10.3969/j.issn.1006-480X.2022.05.002
3 崔小勇, 曾海洲, 龚六堂. 理解要素宏观和微观替代弹性的差异: 基于行业和政策影响的视角[J]. 经济研究, 2025, (6): 19−37. DOI:10.3969/j.issn.0577-9154.2025.06.003
4 戴永安, 张潇. 环境政策的空间溢出与城市能源偏向型技术进步[J]. 世界经济, 2023, (5): 119−151. DOI:10.19985/j.cnki.cassjwe.2023.05.005
5 段玉婉, 蔡龙飞, 陈一文. 全球化背景下中国碳市场的减排和福利效应[J]. 经济研究, 2023, (7): 121−138.
6 范庆泉. 环境规制、收入分配失衡与政府补偿机制[J]. 经济研究, 2018, (5): 14−27.
7 贾智杰, 林伯强, 温师燕. 碳排放权交易试点与全要素生产率——兼论波特假说、技术溢出与污染天堂[J]. 经济学动态, 2023, (3): 66−86.
8 刘金科, 肖翊阳. 中国环境保护税与绿色创新: 杠杆效应还是挤出效应?[J]. 经济研究, 2022, (1): 72−88.
9 刘志彪. 新发展格局与全国统一大市场建设: 分析框架、内在逻辑与政策重点[J]. 经济研究, 2025, (5): 20−36. DOI:10.3969/j.issn.0577-9154.2025.05.003
10 罗良文, 罗志鹏. 控碳政策的区域传导机制与效应——基于量化空间一般均衡模型的分析[J]. 经济学动态, 2025, (11): 115−134. DOI:10.3969/j.issn.1002-8390.2025.11.012
11 马广程, 曹建华, 丁徐轶. 非位似偏好、碳市场与异质性政策协调的减排效应[J]. 中国工业经济, 2024, (2): 42−60. DOI:10.3969/j.issn.1006-480X.2024.02.004
12 彭水军, 张文城, 卫瑞. 碳排放的国家责任核算方案[J]. 经济研究, 2016, (3): 137−150.
13 邵帅, 范美婷, 杨莉莉. 经济结构调整、绿色技术进步与中国低碳转型发展——基于总体技术前沿和空间溢出效应视角的经验考察[J]. 管理世界, 2022, (2): 46−69. DOI:10.3969/j.issn.1002-5502.2022.02.005
14 宋德勇, 汪涌, 胡杨. 外资持股的供应链低碳化效应研究[J]. 中国工业经济, 2023, (11): 155−173. DOI:10.3969/j.issn.1006-480X.2023.11.009
15 宋华, 韩梦玮, 胡雪芹. 供应链金融如何促进供应链低碳发展?——基于国网英大的创新实践[J]. 管理世界, 2023, (5): 93−111. DOI:10.19744/j.cnki.11-1235/f.2023.0063
16 宋丽颖, 张仁杰. 政府绿色采购与企业供应链网络低碳溢出[J]. 财政研究, 2025, (4): 77−93. DOI:10.19477/j.cnki.11-1077/f.2025.04.002
17 孙传旺, 陈智龙, 孙博文. 碳排放权交易制度、产业绿色转型及其外部性[J]. 经济研究, 2025, (6): 134−151. DOI:10.3969/j.issn.0577-9154.2025.06.009
18 屠西伟, 张平淡. 节能目标约束与供应链碳减排[J]. 经济研究, 2025, (7): 201−220. DOI:10.3969/j.issn.0577-9154.2025.07.012
19 涂正革, 谌仁俊. 排污权交易机制在中国能否实现波特效应?[J]. 经济研究, 2015, (7): 160−173.
20 王镝, 章扬. 企业数字化转型、策略性绿色创新与企业环境表现[J]. 经济研究, 2024, (10): 113−131.
21 王欢欢, 吴骁骏. 碳关税、碳减排及其福利影响的定量研究: 基于内生碳价的一般均衡模型[J]. 经济研究, 2025, (5): 192−208. DOI:10.3969/j.issn.0577-9154.2025.05.013
22 王钰冰, 郭凯明. 双循环视角下供需结构转型与碳减排效应[J]. 数量经济技术经济研究, 2024, (7): 197−216. DOI:10.13653/j.cnki.jqte.20240522.003
23 吴茵茵, 齐杰, 鲜琴, 等. 中国碳市场的碳减排效应研究——基于市场机制与行政干预的协同作用视角[J]. 中国工业经济, 2021, (8): 114−132. DOI:10.3969/j.issn.1006-480X.2021.08.007
24 肖挺, 叶浩. 洋垃圾进口禁令与区域环境污染[J]. 经济学(季刊), 2025, (4): 1035−1052. DOI:10.13821/j.cnki.ceq.2025.04.13
25 谢谦, 金才淇. 内陆自贸区建设与企业污染减排——来自全国税收调查的微观证据[J]. 数量经济技术经济研究, 2025, (5): 136−156. DOI:10.13653/j.cnki.jqte.20250415.002
26 袁礼, 周正. 环境权益交易市场与企业绿色专利再配置[J]. 中国工业经济, 2022, (12): 127−145. DOI:10.3969/j.issn.1006-480X.2022.12.008
27 张一林, 刘鹏超, 郁芸君. 自愿与强制碳减排市场协同机制研究[J]. 中国工业经济, 2025, (6): 43−61. DOI:10.3969/j.issn.1006-480X.2025.06.003
28 Ambec S, Esposito F, Pacelli A. The economics of carbon leakage mitigation policies[J]. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 2024, 125: 102973. DOI:10.1016/j.jeem.2024.102973
29 Böhringer C, Rivers N. The energy efficiency rebound effect in general equilibrium[J]. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 2021, 109: 102508. DOI:10.1016/j.jeem.2021.102508
30 Chen Q Y, Chen Z, Liu Z K, et al. Regulating conglomerates: Evidence from an energy conservation program in China[J]. American Economic Review, 2025, 115(2): 408−447. DOI:10.1257/aer.20211455
31 Colmer J, Martin R, Muûls M, et al. Does pricing carbon mitigate climate change? Firm-level evidence from the European Union emissions trading system[J]. Review of Economic Studies, 2025, 92(3): 1625−1660. DOI:10.1093/restud/rdae055
32 Flammer C. Corporate green bonds[J]. Journal of Financial Economics, 2021, 142(2): 499−516. DOI:10.1016/j.jfineco.2021.01.010
33 Fullerton D, Ta C L. Costs of energy efficiency mandates can reverse the sign of rebound[J]. Journal of Public Economics, 2020, 188: 104225. DOI:10.1016/j.jpubeco.2020.104225
34 Gibson M. Regulation-induced pollution substitution[J]. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 2019, 101(5): 827−840. DOI:10.1162/rest_a_00797
35 Hanna R. US environmental regulation and FDI: Evidence from a panel of US-based multinational firms[J]. American Economic Journal: Applied Economics, 2010, 2(3): 158−189. DOI:10.1257/app.2.3.158
36 Lenzen M, Sun Y Y, Faturay F, et al. The carbon footprint of global tourism[J]. Nature Climate Change, 2018, 8(6): 522−528. DOI:10.1038/s41558-018-0141-x
37 Leontief W. Environmental repercussions and the economic structure: An input-output approach[J]. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 1970, 52(3): 262−271. DOI:10.4324/9781315197715-18

数据公开

标题文件大小下载
数据及程序代码 26.8 MB
图表 847.1 KB