The Competitiveness and Carbon Leakage Effects of Carbon Pricing Evidence from EITE Manufacturing Firms in Indonesia
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.59976/jebin.v2i3.280Abstract
This study examines the effects of carbon pricing on industrial competitiveness and carbon leakage among energy-intensive and trade-exposed (EITE) manufacturing firms in the Jabodetabek metropolitan industrial cluster, Indonesia's largest industrial zone. Using an unbalanced panel of 423 firms and 2,687 firm-year observations from 2018 to 2024, we employ two-way fixed-effects regressions, instrumental variable estimation (IV-2SLS), and a difference-in-differences (DID) design exploiting the September 2023 launch of Indonesia's carbon exchange (IDXCarbon) as a natural experiment. We additionally quantify carbon leakage via a gravity model combined with multi-regional input-output (MRIO) analysis, and simulate the financial burden of the EU Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM). The results show that a one standard deviation increase in the effective carbon rate reduces total factor productivity (TFP) by 3.12 percentage points and decreases net profit margins by 1.89 percentage points. The DID estimate implies an 8.47 percentage point reduction in TFP for firms brought under the IDXCarbon scheme. The aggregate carbon leakage rate is 20.4%, with leakage split equally between domestic regional relocation and international displacement, driven predominantly by volume effects. Green innovation moderates the negative competitiveness effect, consistent with a partial Porter Hypothesis mechanism. The gap between Indonesia's effective carbon price (USD 3.9/tCO₂e) and the EU ETS benchmark (USD 70/tCO₂e) generates an estimated USD 291.8 million annual CBAM burden for Jabodetabek exporters, falling disproportionately on small and medium-sized enterprises. These findings provide robust empirical evidence for policymakers designing carbon pricing instruments that balance climate targets with industrial competitiveness in emerging economies.
References
Branger, F., & Quirion, P. (2021). Would border carbon adjustments prevent carbon leakage and heavy industry competitiveness losses? Insights from a meta-analysis of recent economic studies. Ecological Economics, 99, 29–39. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2021.107454
Cosbey, A., Droege, S., Fischer, C., & Munnings, C. (2021). Developing guidance for implementing border carbon adjustments: Lessons, cautions, and research needs from the literature. Review of Environmental Economics and Policy, 13(1), 3–22. https://doi.org/10.1093/reep/rey020
Dietzenbacher, E., Ponomareva, O., Khatiwada, D., & Setiawan, D. (2024). Indonesia’s contribution to global carbon flows: Which sectors are most responsible for the emissions embodied in trade? Sustainable Production and Consumption, 48. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spc.2024.01349
Duan, H., Mo, J., Fan, Y., & Wang, S. (2021). Achieving China’s energy and climate policy targets in 2030 under multiple uncertainties. Energy Economics, 70, 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eneco.2021.105345
Huang, B., Punzi, M. T., & Wu, Y. (2022). Do firms price environmental risk in debt contracting? Evidence from a quasi-natural experiment in China. Journal of Corporate Finance, 74, 102189. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcorpfin.2022.102189
IEEFA. (2024). Two years after launch, Indonesia’s carbon market struggles to find momentum. Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis. https://ieefa.org/resources/two-years-after-launch-indonesias-carbon-market-struggles-find-momentum
Kardish, C., Mehling, M., & Cosbey, A. (2021). Border carbon adjustments and industrial competitiveness: A guide to key concepts. International Institute for Sustainable Development. https://www.iisd.org/system/files/2021-03/border-carbon-adjustment-guide.pdf
Levinsohn, J., & Petrin, A. (2003). Estimating production functions using inputs to control for unobservables. Review of Economic Studies, 70(2), 317–341. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-937X.00246
Li, Z., Wang, J., & Zhao, L. (2022). Carbon tax, carbon trading, and the green innovation: A meta-analysis. Ecological Economics, 197, 107446. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2022.107446
Lin, B., & Zhao, H. (2023). Carbon pricing, trade competitiveness, and carbon leakage: Evidence from emerging economies. Energy Economics, 118, 106495. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eneco.2023.106495
Luo, Y., Wu, J., & Xu, F. (2022). Environmental regulation, political connections, and corporate environmental responsibility: Evidence from China. Business Strategy and the Environment, 31(4), 1453–1471. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.2969
Mehling, M. A., & Ritz, R. (2020). Going beyond default intensities in an EU carbon border adjustment mechanism. Oxford Review of Economic Policy, 36(3), 685–701. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxrep/graa013
Meng, J., Li, S., & Wang, X. (2021). Carbon trading, firm performance, and corporate sustainability: Evidence from China’s ETS pilot. Journal of Cleaner Production, 293, 126173. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.126173
Narassimhan, E., Gallagher, K. S., Koester, S., & Alejo, J. R. (2021). Carbon pricing in practice: A review of existing emissions trading systems. Climate Policy, 18(8), 967–991. https://doi.org/10.1080/14693062.2021.1437432
OECD. (2023). Effective Carbon Rates 2023: Pricing Greenhouse Gas Emissions through Taxes and Emissions Trading. OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/b84d5b36-en
Olley, G. S., & Pakes, A. (1996). The dynamics of productivity in the telecommunications equipment industry. Econometrica, 64(6), 1263–1297. https://doi.org/10.2307/2171831
Porter, M. E., & van der Linde, C. (1995). Toward a new conception of the environment-competitiveness relationship. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 9(4), 97–118. https://doi.org/10.1257/jep.9.4.97
Rexhäuser, S., & Rammer, C. (2023). Environmental innovativeness and firm performance: Unmasking the Porter hypothesis. Research Policy, 52(1), 104643. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2023.104643
Rokhmawati, A. (2022). Exploring the mitigation potential for CO2 emissions in Indonesia’s manufacturing industry: An analysis of firm characteristics. Biofuels, Bioproducts and Biorefining, 16(3). https://doi.org/10.1080/17583004.2022.2042394
Rokhmawati, A., Sathye, M., Sathye, S., & Hasanah, U. (2024). Simulation of carbon tax impact on the competitiveness of the manufacturing industry in Indonesia using a system dynamics approach. International Journal of Energy Economics and Policy, 14(2). https://doi.org/10.32479/ijeep.17514
Santos Silva, J. M. C., & Tenreyro, S. (2006). The log of gravity. Review of Economics and Statistics, 88(4), 641–658. https://doi.org/10.1162/rest.88.4.641
Shen, J., Tang, P., & Zeng, H. (2021). Does China’s carbon emission trading reduce carbon emissions? Evidence from listed firms. Energy for Sustainable Development, 59, 120–129. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esd.2020.09.007
Teusch, J., D’Arcangelo, F. M., Kruse, T., & Pisu, M. (2024). Carbon prices, emissions and international trade in sectors at risk of carbon leakage: Evidence from 140 countries. In OECD Economics Department Working Papers (Vol. 1813). OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/116248f5-en
Teusch, J., D’Arcangelo, F. M., & Pisu, M. (2022). Effectiveness of carbon pricing policies in reducing greenhouse gas emissions in the OECD. In OECD Economics Department Working Papers (Vol. 1720). OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/116248f5-en
Venmans, F., Ellis, J., & Nachtigall, D. (2020). Carbon pricing and competitiveness: Are they at odds? Climate Policy, 20(9), 1070–1091. https://doi.org/10.1080/14693062.2020.1718151
Wang, M., Li, X., & Wang, S. (2021). Discovering research trends and opportunities of green finance and energy policy: A data-driven scientometric analysis. Energy Policy, 154, 112295. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2021.112295
Zhang, J., Zheng, W., & Zhao, Y. (2022). Carbon emission reduction and industry relocation: Evidence from China’s carbon market policy. Energy Policy, 168, 113128. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2022.113128
Zhao, X., Luo, D., & Wang, J. (2024). Countries without transparent carbon accounting and border adjustment protocols likely face trade penalties. Energy Policy, 187, 114011. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2024.114011
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2025 Riartri Nanda Bija, Bima Resi Pahlawan, Okky Putri Gunawan, Tantri Yuanika Sianipar, Bernat Joelsiman, Elisa Vania Yan
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
