[go: up one dir, main page]
IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/hal/cesptp/halshs-04188365.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Network-based allocation of responsibility for GHG emissions

Author

Listed:
  • Rosa van den Ende

    (CES - Centre d'économie de la Sorbonne - UP1 - Université Paris 1 Panthéon-Sorbonne - CNRS - Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, Universität Bielefeld = Bielefeld University)

  • Antoine Mandel

    (CES - Centre d'économie de la Sorbonne - UP1 - Université Paris 1 Panthéon-Sorbonne - CNRS - Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, PSE - Paris School of Economics - UP1 - Université Paris 1 Panthéon-Sorbonne - ENS-PSL - École normale supérieure - Paris - PSL - Université Paris Sciences et Lettres - EHESS - École des hautes études en sciences sociales - ENPC - École des Ponts ParisTech - CNRS - Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique - INRAE - Institut National de Recherche pour l’Agriculture, l’Alimentation et l’Environnement)

  • Agnieszka Rusinowska

    (CES - Centre d'économie de la Sorbonne - UP1 - Université Paris 1 Panthéon-Sorbonne - CNRS - Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, PSE - Paris School of Economics - UP1 - Université Paris 1 Panthéon-Sorbonne - ENS-PSL - École normale supérieure - Paris - PSL - Université Paris Sciences et Lettres - EHESS - École des hautes études en sciences sociales - ENPC - École des Ponts ParisTech - CNRS - Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique - INRAE - Institut National de Recherche pour l’Agriculture, l’Alimentation et l’Environnement)

Abstract
We provide an axiomatic approach to the allocation of responsibility for GHG emissions in supply chains. Considering a set of axioms standardly used in networks and decision theory, and consistent with legal principles underlying responsibility, we show that responsibility measures shall be based on exponential discounting of upstream and downstream emissions. From a network theory perspective, the proposed responsibility measure corresponds to a convex combination of the Bonacich centralities for the upstream and downstream weighted adjacency matrices. Scope 1 emissions, consumption-based accounting and income-based accounting are obtained as particular cases of our approach, which also gives a precise meaning to scope 3 emissions while avoiding double-counting. We apply our approach to the assessment of country-level responsibility for global GHG emissions and to sector-level responsibility in the USA. We examine how the responsibility of sectors/countries varies with the discounting of indirect emissions. We identify three groups of countries/sectors: producers of emissions whose responsibility decreases with the discounting factor, consumers of emissions whose responsibility increases with the discounting factor, and an intermediary group whose responsibility mostly depends on the network position and varies non-monotonically with the discounting factor. Overall, our axiomatic approach provides strong normative foundations for the definition of reporting requirements for indirect emissions and for the allocation of responsibility in claims for climate-related loss and damage.

Suggested Citation

  • Rosa van den Ende & Antoine Mandel & Agnieszka Rusinowska, 2023. "Network-based allocation of responsibility for GHG emissions," Université Paris1 Panthéon-Sorbonne (Post-Print and Working Papers) halshs-04188365, HAL.
    • Handle: RePEc:hal:cesptp:halshs-04188365
    Note: View the original document on HAL open archive server: https://shs.hal.science/halshs-04188365
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://shs.hal.science/halshs-04188365/document
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Sanjith Gopalakrishnan, 2022. "The why and how of assigning responsibility for supply chain emissions," Nature Climate Change, Nature, vol. 12(12), pages 1075-1077, December.
    2. Eder, Peter & Narodoslawsky, Michael, 1999. "What environmental pressures are a region's industries responsible for? A method of analysis with descriptive indices and input-output models," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 29(3), pages 359-374, June.
    3. Stefano Moretti & Raja Trabelsi, 2021. "A Double-Weighted Bankruptcy Method to Allocate CO2 Emissions Permits," Post-Print hal-03835536, HAL.
    4. Stefano Moretti & Raja Trabelsi, 2021. "A Double-Weighted Bankruptcy Method to Allocate CO 2 Emissions Permits," Games, MDPI, vol. 12(4), pages 1-21, October.
    5. Alcalde-Unzu, Jorge & Gómez-Rúa, María & Molis, Elena, 2015. "Sharing the costs of cleaning a river: the Upstream Responsibility rule," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 90(C), pages 134-150.
    6. Munksgaard, Jesper & Pedersen, Klaus Alsted, 2001. "CO2 accounts for open economies: producer or consumer responsibility?," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 29(4), pages 327-334, March.
    7. Nur Sunar & Erica Plambeck, 2016. "Allocating Emissions Among Co-Products: Implications for Procurement and Climate Policy," Manufacturing & Service Operations Management, INFORMS, vol. 18(3), pages 414-428, July.
    8. Marcel P. Timmer & Erik Dietzenbacher & Bart Los & Robert Stehrer & Gaaitzen J. Vries, 2015. "An Illustrated User Guide to the World Input–Output Database: the Case of Global Automotive Production," Review of International Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 23(3), pages 575-605, August.
    9. SCHMEIDLER, David, 1969. "The nucleolus of a characteristic function game," LIDAM Reprints CORE 44, Université catholique de Louvain, Center for Operations Research and Econometrics (CORE).
    10. King, Maia & Tarbush, Bassel & Teytelboym, Alexander, 2019. "Targeted carbon tax reforms," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 119(C), pages 526-547.
    11. Peters, Glen P., 2008. "From production-based to consumption-based national emission inventories," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 65(1), pages 13-23, March.
    12. Ignacio Palacios-Huerta & Oscar Volij, 2004. "The Measurement of Intellectual Influence," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 72(3), pages 963-977, May.
    13. Felipe Caro & Charles J. Corbett & Tarkan Tan & Rob Zuidwijk, 2013. "Double Counting in Supply Chain Carbon Footprinting," Manufacturing & Service Operations Management, INFORMS, vol. 15(4), pages 545-558, October.
    14. Nagarajan, Mahesh & Sosic, Greys, 2008. "Game-theoretic analysis of cooperation among supply chain agents: Review and extensions," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 187(3), pages 719-745, June.
    15. Mitri Kitti, 2016. "Axioms for centrality scoring with principal eigenvectors," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 46(3), pages 639-653, March.
    16. Carl-Friedrich Schleussner & Joeri Rogelj & Michiel Schaeffer & Tabea Lissner & Rachel Licker & Erich M. Fischer & Reto Knutti & Anders Levermann & Katja Frieler & William Hare, 2016. "Science and policy characteristics of the Paris Agreement temperature goal," Nature Climate Change, Nature, vol. 6(9), pages 827-835, September.
    17. Rodrigues, João & Domingos, Tiago, 2008. "Consumer and producer environmental responsibility: Comparing two approaches," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 66(2-3), pages 533-546, June.
    18. Rodrigues, Joao & Domingos, Tiago & Giljum, Stefan & Schneider, Francois, 2006. "Designing an indicator of environmental responsibility," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 59(3), pages 256-266, September.
    19. Samuel Kortum & David Weisbach, 2017. "The Design of Border Adjustments for Carbon Prices," National Tax Journal, National Tax Association;National Tax Journal, vol. 70(2), pages 421-446, June.
    20. Florence Depoers & Thomas Jeanjean & Tiphaine Jérôme, 2016. "Voluntary Disclosure of Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Contrasting the Carbon Disclosure Project and Corporate Reports," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 134(3), pages 445-461, March.
    21. Blanca Gallego & Manfred Lenzen, 2005. "A consistent input-output formulation of shared producer and consumer responsibility," Economic Systems Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 17(4), pages 365-391.
    22. Marques, Alexandra & Rodrigues, João & Lenzen, Manfred & Domingos, Tiago, 2012. "Income-based environmental responsibility," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 84(C), pages 57-65.
    23. José-Manuel Giménez-Gómez & Jordi Teixidó-Figueras & Cori Vilella, 2016. "The global carbon budget: a conflicting claims problem," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 136(3), pages 693-703, June.
    24. Lenzen, Manfred & Murray, Joy & Sack, Fabian & Wiedmann, Thomas, 2007. "Shared producer and consumer responsibility -- Theory and practice," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 61(1), pages 27-42, February.
    25. Giora Slutzki & Oscar Volij, 2006. "Scoring of web pages and tournaments—axiomatizations," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 26(1), pages 75-92, January.
    26. van den Brink, René & He, Simin & Huang, Jia-Ping, 2018. "Polluted river problems and games with a permission structure," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 108(C), pages 182-205.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Boya Zhang & Shukuan Bai & Yadong Ning & Tao Ding & Yan Zhang, 2020. "Emission Embodied in International Trade and Its Responsibility from the Perspective of Global Value Chain: Progress, Trends, and Challenges," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(8), pages 1-26, April.
    2. Xu, Xueliu & Wang, Qian & Ran, Chenyang & Mu, Mingjie, 2021. "Is burden responsibility more effective? A value-added method for tracing worldwide carbon emissions," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 181(C).
    3. Maria Csutora & Zs�fia Vetőn� m�zner, 2014. "Proposing a beneficiary-based shared responsibility approach for calculating national carbon accounts during the post-Kyoto era," Climate Policy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 14(5), pages 599-616, September.
    4. Marques, Alexandra & Rodrigues, João & Lenzen, Manfred & Domingos, Tiago, 2012. "Income-based environmental responsibility," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 84(C), pages 57-65.
    5. Zhang, Youguo, 2013. "The responsibility for carbon emissions and carbon efficiency at the sectoral level: Evidence from China," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 40(C), pages 967-975.
    6. Zhang, Youguo, 2015. "Provincial responsibility for carbon emissions in China under different principles," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 86(C), pages 142-153.
    7. Wiedmann, Thomas, 2009. "A review of recent multi-region input-output models used for consumption-based emission and resource accounting," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(2), pages 211-222, December.
    8. Marques, Alexandra & Rodrigues, João & Domingos, Tiago, 2013. "International trade and the geographical separation between income and enabled carbon emissions," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 89(C), pages 162-169.
    9. Sanjith Gopalakrishnan & Daniel Granot & Frieda Granot & Greys Sošić & Hailong Cui, 2021. "Incentives and Emission Responsibility Allocation in Supply Chains," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 67(7), pages 4172-4190, July.
    10. Sanjith Gopalakrishnan & Daniel Granot & Frieda Granot, 2021. "Consistent Allocation of Emission Responsibility in Fossil Fuel Supply Chains," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 67(12), pages 7637-7668, December.
    11. Zhu, Yongbin & Shi, Yajuan & Wu, Jing & Wu, Leying & Xiong, Wen, 2018. "Exploring the Characteristics of CO2 Emissions Embodied in International Trade and the Fair Share of Responsibility," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 146(C), pages 574-587.
    12. Serrano, Mònica & Dietzenbacher, Erik, 2010. "Responsibility and trade emission balances: An evaluation of approaches," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(11), pages 2224-2232, September.
    13. Wencheng Zhang & Shuijun Peng, 2016. "Analysis on CO 2 Emissions Transferred from Developed Economies to China through Trade," China & World Economy, Institute of World Economics and Politics, Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, vol. 24(2), pages 68-89, March.
    14. Feng, Tian-tian & Yang, Yi-sheng & Xie, Shi-yan & Dong, Jun & Ding, Luo, 2017. "Economic drivers of greenhouse gas emissions in China," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 78(C), pages 996-1006.
    15. Lenzen, Manfred & Murray, Joy, 2010. "Conceptualising environmental responsibility," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(2), pages 261-270, December.
    16. Rui Xie & Chao Gao & Guomei Zhao & Yu Liu & Shengcheng Xu, 2017. "Empirical Study of China’s Provincial Carbon Responsibility Sharing: Provincial Value Chain Perspective," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(4), pages 1-16, April.
    17. Vinicius A. Vale & Fernando S. Perobelli & Ariaster B. Chimeli, 2018. "International trade, pollution, and economic structure: evidence on CO2 emissions for the North and the South," Economic Systems Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 30(1), pages 1-17, January.
    18. M. Cordier & T. Poitelon & W. Hecq, 2019. "The shared environmental responsibility principle: new developments applied to the case of marine ecosystems," Economic Systems Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 31(2), pages 228-247, April.
    19. Goher-Ur-Rehman Mir & Servaas Storm, 2016. "Carbon Emissions and Economic Growth: Production-based versus Consumption-based Evidence on Decoupling," Working Papers Series 41, Institute for New Economic Thinking.
    20. Peng, Shuijun & Zhang, Wencheng & Sun, Chuanwang, 2016. "‘Environmental load displacement’ from the North to the South: A consumption-based perspective with a focus on China," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 128(C), pages 147-158.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    upstream and downstream emission responsibilities; supply chains and networks; responsibility measure; axiomatization; Bonacich centrality;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • D85 - Microeconomics - - Information, Knowledge, and Uncertainty - - - Network Formation
    • Q5 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Environmental Economics

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:hal:cesptp:halshs-04188365. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: CCSD (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.