voluntariness and forcibleness. For the past 10 years, there were crucial junctures with the method about opening information. In brief, from 2004 to 2007, no national-wide public information law existed and only specific regional and industries were regulated to release information. In 2008, the government determined policy about the compulsory information release of pollutant with period of suspension, 2years. So, during 2008 and 2010, only the information from voluntary workplace went public. In 2010, the grace period expiring, every workplace faced the duty to open its pollutant emission information. So, the period of 2004-2007 is used as the comparative period and two periods, 2008-2011 and 2010-2011(current) are analyzed as two dummy variables. Furthermore, the top 25% industry (5 out of 19) and the top 25% province*industry (70 out of 278) in the released quantity order are chosen differently to go into the relation between the emission quantity and the effect of disclose. For control variables, the total sales, the number of employee, research and development cost, regulation rate, monitoring rate, the number of environment group and turnout of provincial governor are considered.The finding of this study is as in the following. First, total release quantity of pollutant was at average found declined in 2008 and increased again in 2010. So total release went back to their emission pattern at 2010. Secondly, the hazardous pollutant group such as 1group, toxicant, and carcinogens is averagely significantly decreased in 2008 and slowly increased in 2010 in comparison with the rest group. This shows that businesses are more sensitive to the policy decision impact and its official announcement than to the information disclosure itself. Interestingly, this policy decision impact more enormously stands forth on toxic pollutant. But, the influence itself is not much noticeable, and it presumably stems from the low availability of the information presented to community.Thirdly, the top 25% industry in the released quantity, except 1group, is seen to emit more in 2008 and to hold this emission pattern until 2010 while the emission quantity of the average industry reduced in 2008 and increased in 2010. This implies that the pollution abatement cost of the top industry is way higher than the average industry considering the marginal pollution abatement benefit of top industry is not different from the average industry, more detailed examination is needed on the emission reduction cost of the top industry.Forth, the change of emission pattern from the top 25% region*industry is not statistically significant in 2008 and in 2010.However, the top region*industry has smaller coefficient than theaverage region*industry. This shows the top region*industry is less affected on the emission reduction by the regulation of the opening information. Additionally, in the accordance with the data that the top region*industry emission doesn’t increase unlike the top industry group, it is assumed that the region factor plays a role in offset the emission quantity. To conclude, the regulation impact of the current workplace pollutant release is less significant than expected and the top emission group was not sensitive as the average emission group. In addition, the correlation between pollutant maleficence and the effect of information disclosure is observed only in the average emission group. However, in respecting the top emission group’s smaller coefficient, difference between top industry and top region*industry and the change of 1group emission pattern, the profound impact is to be made with improvement in the disclosure method and with maximizing this opening information system by more regions.
PDF
download
878987797
028-85220240
