Carbon Trading Mechanism and Corporate Green Technology Innovation: A Theoretical Framework of Resource Allocation Efficiency
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.54691/69wbkb76Keywords:
Carbon Trading Market Mechanism; Green Technological Innovation; Efficiency of Resource Allocation; Carbon Price and Quota Constraint.Abstract
Against the backdrop of advancing "dual carbon" goals and improving the national carbon market, carbon trading has become a key external driver for corporate low-carbon transformation. Unlike traditional command-and-control environmental regulations, carbon trading transforms carbon emissions into measurable, tradable, and manageable operational costs through quota allocation, carbon price formation, and compliance obligations. These market-based mechanisms further influence enterprises' investment strategies, production plans, and R&D decisions. This paper analyzes the logical chain linking carbon trading mechanisms, resource allocation efficiency, and corporate green technological innovation. The study finds that carbon trading can boost enterprises' willingness to pursue green innovation through price signals and quota constraints. However, this effect does not occur automatically; it relies on resource allocation efficiency as a core channel. Only when enterprises redirect capital, R&D personnel, equipment, and management resources from energy-intensive, low-efficiency processes to energy-saving, low-carbon and green technologies can carbon constraints effectively drive substantive innovation. Accordingly, the paper proposes two key recommendations: further improving carbon price discovery mechanisms and quota allocation systems; and guiding enterprises to build carbon-cost-oriented resource allocation frameworks, to maximize the incentive effect of carbon trading policies on green technological innovation.
Downloads
References
[1] Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the People's Republic of China. (2020, September 22). Speech by Xi Jinping at the General Debate of the 75th United Nations General Assembly (Full Text). Retrieved May 5, 2026.
[2] Ministry of Ecology and Environment. (2021, July 8). The carbon emission trading market will launch online trading in July. Retrieved May 5, 2026.
[3] Ministry of Ecology and Environment. (2022). First compliance cycle report of the national carbon emission trading market. Ministry of Ecology and Environment.
[4] Montgomery, W. D. (1972). Markets in licenses and efficient pollution control programs. Journal of Economic Theory, 5(3), 395–418.
[5] Porter, M. E., & van der Linde, C. (1995). Green and competitive: Ending the stalemate. Harvard Business Review, 73(5), 120–134.
[6] Popp, D. (2002). Induced innovation and energy prices. American Economic Review, 92(1), 160–180.
[7] Acemoglu, D., Aghion, P., Bursztyn, L., et al. (2012). The environment and directed technical change. American Economic Review, 102(1), 131–166.
[8] Calel, R., & Dechezleprêtre, A. (2016). Environmental policy and directed technological change: Evidence from the European carbon market. Review of Economics and Statistics, 98(1), 173–191.
[9] Liu, M., & Li, Y. (2022). Environmental regulation and green innovation: Evidence from China's carbon emissions trading policy. Finance Research Letters, 48, 103051.
[10] Hu, J., Huang, N., & Shen, H. (2020). Can market incentive-based environmental regulation promote corporate technological innovation? - A natural experiment based on China's carbon emission trading mechanism. Financial Research, (1), 171–189.
[11] He, Y. (2022). The impact and mechanism of carbon trading markets on corporate innovation strategies. China Population·Resources and Environment, 32(7), 37–48.
[12] Cao, H., Yi, Y., & Jiang, J. (2024). The driving mechanism of green innovation in the carbon market: Property rights definition or market transactions? Financial Research, 50(7), 80–94.
[13] Wurgler, J. (2000). Financial markets and the allocation of capital. Journal of Financial Economics, 58(1–2), 187–214.
[14] Hsieh, C. T., & Klenow, P. J. (2009). Misallocation and manufacturing TFP in China and India. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 124(4), 1403–1448.
[15] Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51(6), 1173–1182.
[16] Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2008). Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models. Behavior Research Methods, 40(3), 879–891.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Scientific Journal of Economics and Management Research

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.




