|
Abstract In order to synergize the reduction of pollution and carbon emissions, a series of environmental policy tools like “combination punches” have been implemented to stimulate companies for adopting low-carbon innovations in China. Little existing literature, however, has focused on this problem. The incentive effects of “three dimensions and six types” environmental policy tool combination, namely the regulatory dimension (punishment type, inspection type), the incentive dimension (honor type, preferential type), and the assistance dimension (guidance type, publicity type) on company adopting low-carbon innovations are analyzed in this paper from the perspective of configuration, selecting 380 polluting enterprises in Zhejiang Province as research samples and using a combination of NCA and fsQCA methods，grounded in the theoretical perspective of multiple institutional logics.
The findings reveal that: (1) No single type of environmental policy tool constitutes a necessary condition for stimulating low-carbon innovation; however, regulatory tools, represented by punitive and inspection-based measures, play a universally significant role. (2) Four distinct policy configurations effectively form a “combination punch” to stimulate innovation, namely: regulation-dominated with economic-supportive supplements, regulation-dominated with economic inducement, regulation-dominated with supportive assistance, and a regulation-dominated configuration. These configurations reflect diverse corporate demands for policy supply and demonstrate multiple pathways for the government to guide low-carbon innovation. (3) The combination of environmental policy tools has formed a coupled and interactive relationship of three institutional logics: synergy, complementarity, and substitution. Among the four configurations mentioned above, the inherent coupling mechanism of three policy “combination punches” is a synergy relationship. There is a complementary relationship between punishment policies and inspection policies, as well as guidance policies and publicity policies. The combination of honor and guidance policy tools is prone to form a substitution relationship. (4) Different types of firms prefer different policy mixes for low-carbon innovation. High-tech firms prefer combinations dominated by both regulatory and publicity tools, while general firms prefer those dominated by preferential tools. SMEs prefer regulation-dominated mixes, whereas large firms prefer mixes where preferential tools serve as the core condition.
This study contributes to the literature in several ways: (1) It pioneers the combined application of NCA and fsQCA in this domain, enriching the methodological toolkit and jointly supporting the core argument for the importance of policy synergy through the lenses of necessity and sufficiency. (2) It integrates the multiple, co-opetitive institutional logics of deterrence, inducement, and assistance to construct a comprehensive analytical framework explaining the coupling effects of the environmental policy “combination punch”, offering a novel perspective for understanding the causal complexity behind corporate low-carbon innovation. (3) It exploratively utilizes sub-sample fsQCA analysis to delve into firm heterogeneity (technology level and size) as a boundary condition of configurational effects, clearly addressing the critical policy question of “which policy mix works best for whom”, thereby enhancing the practical guidance value of the research findings.
|
|
Published: 22 April 2026
|
|
|
|
