Chapter 10: Conclusion: Toward a Capability-Based Green Competitive Advantage in Global Value Chains

10.1 The View from the Loading Bay

In the autumn of 2023, a furniture factory in Shunde resumed full production after three months of stalled orders. The yard was stacked with flat-packed panels bound for Rotterdam and Los Angeles. The manager, a third-generation owner of what had begun as a joinery workshop in the 1980s, walked me through the plant. He stopped at a new line—water-based coating booths, sealed and ventilated, with a solvent recovery unit at the rear. He had installed it in 2021, not because a buyer demanded it, and not because the local environmental bureau had issued a deadline, though both pressures were real. He installed it because a German client had sent an engineer to audit the plant, and the audit had produced a list of defects that included, unexpectedly, the finish quality of the panels. The solvent-based lacquer had been blistering in humid weather. The water-based line solved a defect problem and a compliance problem at the same time. "We thought green was a cost," he said. "Then we found it was a way to sell better furniture."

That sentence contains the argument of this book. Green governance capability is a capacity firms build, and building it changes what they can make, whom they can sell to, and where in the value chain they sit. The Shunde manager did not set out to climb the value chain. He set out to fix a blistering defect. The climbing was a consequence.

The chapters that precede this one have examined that consequence across industries, across governance levels, and across the institutional architecture of China's dual carbon policy. What follows restates the endogenous green capability framework in a form that can travel beyond the cases examined here, draws out implications for policymakers and managers, and identifies the questions the framework cannot yet answer.

A word on method. The claims advanced in this book rest on a mix of industry-level data, firm interviews, and comparative case analysis. The Shunde factory is not a representative firm; it is an illustrative one. A representative firm would tell us what is typical; an illustrative firm tells us what is possible, and under what conditions. The analytical burden falls on specifying those conditions, which is what the capability framework is for.

10.2 The Endogenous Green Capability Framework: A Restatement

10.2.1 From Compliance to Capability: The Core Distinction

The conventional treatment of environmental regulation and firm competitiveness runs along a familiar axis. Regulation raises costs. Firms comply or exit. The competitiveness effect is negative in the short run and, under the Porter hypothesis, possibly positive in the long run if regulation stimulates innovation (Porter and van der Linde, 1995). The Porter hypothesis has generated a large empirical literature, much of it inconclusive, and the inconclusiveness is instructive. The hypothesis treats regulation as the independent variable and innovation as the dependent variable, and it asks whether the sign of the relationship is positive. That framing obscures the mechanism. Regulation does not produce innovation; firms produce innovation, and regulation sometimes creates the conditions under which they do.

This book has argued for a different framing. The dependent variable is not innovation in general but green governance capability: the organizational capacity to measure, manage, and improve environmental performance across a product's life cycle, in coordination with suppliers, buyers, and regulators. That capacity is built through learning, and learning is endogenous to the firm's position in the value chain, its factor intensity, and the institutional environment in which it operates. Regulation is one input into that learning process. It is neither necessary nor sufficient. Some firms build capability without regulatory pressure, because buyers demand it or because process efficiency pays. Some firms comply with regulation for years without building anything, because compliance is designed as a box-ticking exercise and they treat it as such.

The distinction between complying and climbing is the analytical hinge. Complying means meeting a standard at a point in time. Climbing means converting the standard into a capability that raises the firm's position in the value chain. The two activities can look identical on an audit form. They diverge in what happens next: the complying firm reverts to its prior production function when the auditor leaves; the climbing firm has changed its production function, and the change is durable.

Consider what durability requires. A firm that installs a scrubber to meet an emissions limit has complied. A firm that installs a scrubber, trains a technician to maintain it, begins monitoring the recovered solvent, discovers that recovery reduces input costs, and redesigns its coating process around recovery has climbed. The physical capital is the same in both cases. The organizational capital is different. The capability framework directs attention to the organizational capital—the routines, the measurement systems, the supplier relationships, the workforce skills—because that is where the durable advantage resides.

10.2.2 The Three Dimensions of Green Governance Capability

The framework developed in Chapter 4 specifies three dimensions. Measurement capability is the ability to quantify environmental performance at the product, process, and facility level. This sounds mundane. It is not. A firm that cannot measure its carbon footprint cannot manage it, cannot report it to a buyer, cannot defend it against a border adjustment, and cannot identify where the cheap abatement opportunities are. Measurement capability includes metering, data infrastructure, accounting methods, and the personnel who interpret the numbers. Chinese manufacturers have invested heavily in measurement capability over the past decade, driven by export market requirements and by the domestic emissions trading system. The investment is uneven. Large firms in technology-intensive sectors have built sophisticated systems; small firms in labor-intensive sectors often rely on invoices and estimates.

Process capability is the ability to change production processes in response to environmental requirements without sacrificing cost, quality, or delivery. It is what distinguishes a firm that can substitute a water-based coating for a solvent-based one from a firm that can only absorb the cost of the solvent-based one. Process capability depends on engineering skills, on relationships with equipment suppliers, on the willingness to interrupt production for retooling, and on the organizational slack to absorb the disruption. It is sector-specific in its content and general in its structure: the furniture firm and the steel firm build different processes, but they build them the same way, through experimentation, learning-by-doing, and the accumulation of tacit knowledge that cannot be purchased off the shelf.

Coordination capability, the most relational of the three and the least studied, is the ability to align environmental performance across the value chain—with suppliers upstream, buyers downstream, and regulators laterally. It includes supplier development (helping a supplier meet an environmental standard rather than dropping the supplier), buyer engagement (understanding what the buyer will pay for and what the buyer will audit), and regulatory navigation (knowing which agency interprets which rule and how to seek guidance before a violation occurs). The Shunde manager's German client audit is a coordination capability event: the firm learned what the buyer wanted, and the learning changed the firm's process.

The three dimensions interact. Measurement without process capability produces reports that no one acts on. Process capability without coordination produces improvements that suppliers undermine or buyers do not value. Coordination without measurement produces relationships without evidence. The framework treats the three as a system, and the empirical chapters have shown that firms rarely build all three at once. The sequence matters, and the sequence is shaped by factor intensity.

10.2.3 Factor Intensity and Differentiated Pathways

The book's central empirical claim is that the pathway to green capability differs systematically across labor-intensive, technology-intensive, and capital-intensive industries. The differences are not matters of degree; they are differences in the binding constraint.

In labor-intensive industries—furniture, apparel, footwear, light assembly—the binding constraint is the cost of coordination. Green requirements arrive through buyers, and the buyers' requirements are often stricter than domestic regulation. The firm can meet them, but meeting them requires supplier development, traceability, and documentation that small firms cannot afford to build alone. The cluster becomes the relevant unit of analysis. Firms in dense clusters can share testing facilities, pool auditor visits, and learn from one another's compliance failures. Firms in sparse clusters cannot. The result is a bifurcation within the same industry: cluster firms climb, isolated firms comply or relocate. Chapter 5 documented this pattern in the furniture and apparel sectors, and Chapter 8 examined its consequences for export competitiveness.

In technology-intensive industries—electronics, machinery, new energy equipment—the binding constraint is the learning curve. Green capability is built through innovation, and innovation is expensive and uncertain. The firms that climb are those that can absorb the cost of experimentation and protect the returns long enough to learn. Patent data, R&D intensity, and the composition of export baskets all point in the same direction: technology-intensive firms convert environmental requirements into product differentiation, and the differentiation is durable because it rests on knowledge that competitors cannot immediately copy. Chapter 6 traced this pathway through the solar photovoltaic and battery industries, where Chinese firms moved from component suppliers to system designers over a decade.

In capital-intensive industries—steel, cement, chemicals, power—the binding constraint is asset specificity. Green capability requires process substitution, and process substitution in a capital-intensive industry means writing off existing assets. The firm that has just built a blast furnace cannot easily abandon it for a hydrogen-based direct reduction plant. The governance challenge is to manage the transition without stranding the assets, which requires long time horizons, patient capital, and a policy environment that does not shift under the firm's feet. Chapter 7 examined the stranded asset problem in the steel sector and the governance arrangements that mitigate it.

The three pathways are not a typology of firms. They are a typology of constraints. A labor-intensive firm with strong coordination capability can climb further than a technology-intensive firm with weak learning capability. The constraint is what binds, and the binding constraint differs by factor intensity.

10.2.4 The Compliance Trap

The framework yields a prediction that the empirical chapters have confirmed. Firms that treat green governance as a compliance exercise—meeting the standard, documenting the meeting, and returning to business as usual—do not build capability. They build compliance routines, which are a different thing. Compliance routines are fragile. They depend on the standard remaining stable, the auditor remaining satisfied, and the cost of compliance remaining low. When any of these conditions changes, the firm is exposed.

I have called this the compliance trap. The trap is not that compliance is costly. The trap is that compliance is easy, in the specific sense that it can be achieved without changing the production function. The ease is seductive. A firm that complies can tell itself that it has addressed the environmental question. It has not. It has postponed the question, and the postponement accumulates as a liability.

The compliance trap is most acute in labor-intensive industries, where the gap between the compliance standard and the capability standard is widest. A furniture firm can meet a formaldehyde emission limit by switching to a compliant adhesive. It cannot meet a carbon border adjustment by switching adhesives; it needs to measure the embodied carbon of its panels, its coatings, its packaging, and its transport, and it needs to reduce that carbon in ways that its buyers will recognize. The first is compliance. The second is capability. The gap between them is where firms fail.

The trap is not inevitable. Firms escape it when three conditions hold: the environmental requirement is stable enough to justify investment, the buyer or regulator provides information that reduces the cost of learning, and the firm has organizational slack to experiment. The Shunde manager escaped because his German client provided the audit, the audit provided the information, and the plant had enough slack to retool one line. Remove any of the three and the escape becomes unlikely.

10.2.5 Capability as an Endogenous Driver

The book's title claim is that green governance capability is endogenous to industrial upgrading. The claim has two parts. The first is that capability is built, not bought: it accumulates through learning, and learning is a function of effort, experience, and the institutional environment. The second is that the accumulation feeds back into the firm's position in the value chain. The firm that builds capability can do things it could not do before—meet stricter standards, enter new markets, command higher prices, coordinate more complex supply relationships—and those new activities raise its position.

The endogeneity is the reason the compliance-versus-climbing distinction matters for policy. If capability were exogenous—if firms either had it or did not, for reasons outside the policy maker's reach—then policy could only redistribute the burden of environmental regulation. Because capability is endogenous, policy can build it. The instruments are not obvious, and Chapter 9 examined them at length, but the possibility is real. The remainder of this chapter draws out the implications.

10.3 Policy and Managerial Implications

10.3.1 The Policy Problem: Building Capability, Not Just Enforcing Standards

The Chinese green governance system has invested heavily in the formal floor. Emissions standards, energy efficiency targets, carbon market design, green finance taxonomy—the architecture is elaborate, and it has produced measurable results. According to the People's Bank of China's green finance statistics, the green credit balance reached RMB 11.95 trillion by the end of 2020, about 6.9 percent of total credit, the largest such balance in the world at the time. Green bond issuance totaled RMB 1.2 trillion between 2015 and 2020, according to the same series. The financial system has been mobilized, at least partially, behind the decarbonization agenda.

The investment in the formal floor has a blind spot. The floor enforces compliance; it does not build capability. A firm can meet every standard in the rulebook and still lack the measurement, process, and coordination capabilities that value chain climbing requires. The blind spot is not accidental. It reflects a theory of governance in which the state sets the standard and the firm meets it, and the relationship is mediated by inspection and penalty. That theory works for point-source pollution, where the violation is observable and the remedy is a technical fix. It works less well for capability building, where the outcome is a change in organizational routines that no inspector can verify.

The policy implication is that the enabling environment is the object of policy, not the firm. Chapter 9 developed this argument in detail; the conclusion restates it because it is the most consequential implication of the book. The enabling environment includes the formal floor, but it also includes the informal norms that determine whether firms treat environmental performance as a strategic variable, and the cluster infrastructure that determines whether small firms can afford to learn. The Chinese system has underinvested in both. The underinvestment is the binding constraint on capability building in labor-intensive clusters, and it is the constraint that the next phase of policy must address.

What would investment in the enabling environment look like? Three instruments are available, and none of them is novel. The first is shared infrastructure: testing laboratories, carbon accounting platforms, and auditor training facilities located in industrial clusters and accessible to small firms at low cost. The second is supplier development programs: public support for the training that lead firms provide to their suppliers, on the theory that the capability built in the supplier base is a public good that no single lead firm will fully fund. The third is regulatory predictability: a commitment to stable standards over multi-year horizons, so that firms can justify the investment that capability building requires. The third instrument is the cheapest and the most neglected. A firm that expects the standard to change next year will not retool this year.

The instruments interact with factor intensity. In labor-intensive clusters, shared infrastructure and supplier development are the priorities, because the binding constraint is coordination cost. In technology-intensive sectors, the priority is the research and standards infrastructure that reduces the cost of experimentation, because the binding constraint is the learning curve. In capital-intensive sectors, the priority is the long-horizon policy signal and the patient capital that makes process substitution financeable, because the binding constraint is asset specificity. A single instrument applied uniformly across sectors will underperform. The framework predicts this, and the empirical chapters have confirmed it.

10.3.2 The Carbon Border Adjustment as a Capability Test

The European Union's Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM) deserves separate treatment, because it converts the capability question into a market access question. CBAM is scheduled to impose a carbon price on imports of steel, cement, aluminum, fertilizer, electricity, and hydrogen, with the price linked to the EU emissions trading system. The mechanism is transitional, and its final design is contested, but the direction is clear: exporters to the European market will need to document the embodied carbon of their products and pay the difference between their home carbon price and the EU price.

The conventional analysis treats CBAM as a trade barrier. It is that, and the distributive consequences are real. But the capability framework suggests a different reading. CBAM is a measurement requirement before it is a price requirement. A firm that cannot measure the embodied carbon of its exports cannot participate in the mechanism, and will face the default values that the EU assigns, which are punitive by design. The measurement requirement is the binding constraint for most Chinese exporters, not the price. The firms that have built measurement capability will pay the price and continue to export. The firms that have not will exit the market or absorb the default penalty.

The policy response follows. The priority is not to litigate the mechanism, though litigation may be appropriate. The priority is to build the measurement infrastructure that allows exporters to document their carbon at the product level. The infrastructure includes facility-level metering, product-level accounting methods, and third-party verification capacity. Some of this exists. The national emissions trading system has built facility-level monitoring for the covered sectors. Product-level accounting is less developed, and verification capacity is scarce. The gap is where policy should focus.

The managerial implication is parallel. A firm that exports to Europe should treat CBAM as a capability audit, not a tax. The audit asks: can you measure your embodied carbon? Can you trace it to suppliers? Can you reduce it in ways that the mechanism will recognize? A firm that answers yes to all three has a competitive advantage over a firm that answers no, because the mechanism rewards documentation. The advantage is not permanent—competitors will build the same capability—but it is real for the transition period, and it compounds with the capability built for other markets.

10.3.3 Managerial Implications: The Capability Agenda

For firm managers, the framework yields a short agenda. The first item is to measure. A firm that does not measure its environmental performance cannot manage it, and cannot demonstrate it to buyers or regulators. The measurement does not need to be perfect; it needs to be good enough to support decisions. The Shunde manager did not build a life-cycle assessment model. He installed meters on the coating line and tracked the solvent recovery rate. That was enough to justify the investment.

The second item is to sequence. The three dimensions of capability—measurement, process, coordination—are built in sequence, and the sequence is determined by the firm's position in the value chain. A supplier to a lead firm should build measurement capability first, because the lead firm will demand it. A firm that sells directly to consumers should build coordination capability first, because the consumer-facing brand will demand traceability. A firm in a capital-intensive sector should build process capability first, because the asset specificity makes process substitution the binding constraint. The sequence is not arbitrary; it follows from the constraint.

The third item is to treat buyers as learning partners. The German client's audit was valuable not because it was pleasant—it was not—but because it provided information that the firm could not have generated on its own. The information reduced the cost of learning. Firms that treat buyer audits as inspections to be passed will learn less than firms that treat them as diagnostic exercises. The difference is attitudinal, and it is consequential.

The fourth item is to invest in the cluster. A firm's capability depends on the capabilities of its suppliers, its workers, and its local institutions. A firm that free-rides on the cluster will find that the cluster degrades. A firm that invests—in supplier training, in shared facilities, in the local vocational school—will find that its own capability improves. The investment is not altruism. It is the recognition that capability is relational.

10.3.4 Anticipating Objections

Three objections to the framework deserve response.

The first is that the framework is optimistic. It predicts that firms can climb, and the prediction may not hold for the firms that most need it. The objection is fair, and the response is conditional. The framework does not predict that all firms will climb. It predicts that firms with the right capabilities, in the right institutional environment, facing the right demand signals, can climb. The conditions are restrictive. Many firms will comply, and some will exit. The framework's value is in specifying the conditions, not in promising that the conditions are universal.

The second objection is that the framework is Western. The capability-based view of the firm originates in the resource-based tradition (Barney, 1991; Peteraf, 1993), and the value chain governance literature originates in the global commodity chain tradition (Gereffi, Humphrey, and Sturgeon, 2005). Both traditions were developed in contexts that differ from contemporary China. The objection has force, but it misreads the use. The framework does not import the conclusions of those traditions; it imports the questions. The questions—what is the firm's capability, how is it built, how does it interact with governance—are general. The answers are contextual, and the empirical chapters have supplied contextual answers.

The third objection is that the framework underweights power. Value chain governance is not a cooperative learning exercise; it is a relationship structured by power, and the lead firms that set environmental standards also capture the rents from meeting them. The objection is correct, and the framework should be read with it in mind. Capability building changes the firm's position, but it does not change the structure of the chain. A supplier that builds measurement capability is more valuable to the lead firm, and it may capture some of that value, but it does not become the lead firm. The climbing metaphor should not be overextended. Climbing is real, and it is bounded.

10.4 Future Research Directions

10.4.1 The Measurement Problem

The most pressing research question is measurement. The framework treats green governance capability as a latent construct with three dimensions, and the empirical chapters have operationalized it through proxies: metering density, process change indicators, supplier development activity. The proxies are imperfect. A firm can have dense metering and no capability; a firm can have sparse metering and deep capability. The measurement problem is not solved, and it limits the framework's testability.

Three lines of work would help. The first is the development of firm-level capability indices that can be validated against performance outcomes. The indices would need to be sector-specific in their content and comparable in their structure, which is a demanding requirement. The second is the use of administrative data—emissions trading records, green credit applications, export documentation—to construct capability measures at scale. The data exist, and they are underused. The third is the triangulation of survey measures with ethnographic observation, which is expensive but necessary for validating the constructs.

The measurement problem is not merely technical. It shapes what firms do. A firm that is measured on its emissions will manage its emissions; a firm that is measured on its capability will manage its capability. The choice of measure is a policy choice, and it should be made deliberately.

10.4.2 The Cluster as a Unit of Analysis

The framework has treated the cluster as an enabling condition, and Chapter 9 examined the cluster's role in capability building. The treatment is preliminary. The cluster is a complex unit—a geographic concentration of firms, institutions, and relationships—and the mechanisms through which it enables capability building are not well understood.

Three questions stand out. The first is the relationship between cluster density and capability diffusion. Does capability spread more rapidly in dense clusters, and if so, through what channels—labor mobility, supplier relationships, imitation, formal cooperation? The second is the role of cluster institutions. Do shared testing facilities, industry associations, and vocational schools build capability, or do they merely coordinate compliance? The third is the effect of cluster decline. When a cluster loses its lead firms, does the capability built in the cluster dissipate, or does it persist in the remaining firms and institutions? The questions are empirical, and they require longitudinal data that is not yet available.

The cluster questions connect to the broader debate on industrial policy. The Chinese government has supported cluster development through a range of instruments—industrial parks, technology platforms, demonstration bases. The instruments have not been evaluated for their capability effects. The evaluation would be valuable, and it would inform the design of the next phase of policy.

10.4.3 The Boundary of the Firm

The capability framework has treated the firm as the unit of analysis, with the value chain as the environment. The boundary is convenient, and it is increasingly untenable. Firms do not build capability alone; they build it in relationship with suppliers, buyers, and competitors. The relational dimension is central to the coordination capability, and it is under-theorized.

The research question is how capability is distributed across the value chain. A lead firm's capability depends on its suppliers' capabilities, and the dependence is reciprocal: the supplier's capability depends on the lead firm's willingness to invest in supplier development. The distribution is a governance problem, and it is not well understood. The literature on global value chain governance has examined the distribution of value, and the literature on supplier development has examined the distribution of knowledge, but the two literatures have not been integrated. The integration would be a contribution.

The boundary question has a policy dimension. If capability is distributed across the chain, then policy that targets individual firms will underperform policy that targets the chain. The implication is that supplier development programs, cluster initiatives, and value chain partnerships should be evaluated as capability-building instruments, not merely as industrial policy. The evaluation would require new methods, and the methods would be worth developing.

10.4.4 Carbon Pricing and Capability: The Causal Question

The book has treated carbon pricing as one input into the capability-building process, and it has not attempted to estimate the causal effect. The omission is deliberate. The causal question is hard, and the data are not yet adequate. But the question is important, and it should be on the research agenda.

The question is whether carbon pricing builds capability or merely reallocates the cost of compliance. The theory is ambiguous. A carbon price raises the cost of emissions, which should incentivize abatement, which should build process capability. But a carbon price also raises the cost of production, which may reduce the slack that capability building requires. The net effect is empirical, and it may vary by sector and by firm size.

The Chinese national emissions trading system provides a natural experiment. The system was launched in 2021, and it covers the power sector initially, with expansion to other sectors planned. The variation in coverage, price, and enforcement across regions and sectors is substantial. The variation could be exploited to estimate the effect of carbon pricing on capability proxies—metering investment, process change, supplier development—and the estimates would inform the policy debate.

The causal question connects to the broader debate on the Porter hypothesis. The hypothesis predicts that regulation stimulates innovation, and the empirical literature is inconclusive. The capability framework suggests why: the effect depends on whether the regulation is designed to build capability or merely to enforce compliance. A regulation that provides information, stability, and slack will build capability; a regulation that provides only a penalty will not. The design dimension is the missing variable, and it is where the research should focus.

10.4.5 The International Dimension

The book has examined the Chinese case, with attention to the international context. The international dimension deserves more attention than it has received.

Three questions stand out. The first is the effect of carbon border adjustments on capability building in exporting countries. The CBAM is the most prominent example, and its effect on Chinese exporters is not yet known. The effect may be positive—firms build measurement capability to document their carbon—or negative—firms exit the European market and lose the learning opportunity. The net effect is empirical.

The second is the diffusion of green standards through global value chains. The standards originate with lead firms in advanced economies, and they diffuse to suppliers in developing economies. The diffusion is uneven, and the unevenness shapes the distribution of capability. The research question is how the diffusion can be made more inclusive, and the answer is likely to involve supplier development, technical assistance, and the recognition of equivalence across standards regimes.

The third is the role of Chinese firms as standard setters. The Chinese new energy industries—solar, batteries, electric vehicles—have become global leaders, and their standards are beginning to shape the global market. The shift from standard taker to standard setter is a capability event, and it is not well understood. The research question is how firms make the shift, and what it implies for the global governance of green standards.

10.4.6 The Limits of the Framework

The framework has limits, and they should be stated. It is a framework for understanding how firms build green capability in value chains. It is not a theory of the firm, a theory of the state, or a theory of the global economy. It does not predict which firms will climb, and it does not prescribe the optimal policy. It specifies the conditions under which climbing is possible, and it identifies the constraints that bind. The specification is useful, and it is incomplete.

The incompleteness is the point. A framework that claimed to be complete would be false. The green transition is a moving target, and the capability that firms need is changing as the target moves. The framework should be read as a guide to the questions, not as a set of answers. The answers will come from the research that the framework makes possible.

10.5 Coda: The Factory Revisited

The Shunde manager's factory is still running. The water-based line has been extended, and the solvent recovery unit has paid for itself twice over. The German client has increased orders, and a second European buyer has begun auditing the plant. The manager has hired a young engineer to manage the carbon accounting, and the engineer has begun to trace the embodied carbon of the panels back to the sawmill. The traceability is incomplete, and it will take years to build. The manager is not worried. "We started with the coating," he said. "The rest will follow."

The rest will follow, or it will not. The framework predicts that it will, if the conditions hold—if the buyer keeps demanding, if the policy stays stable, if the cluster provides the shared infrastructure that the small suppliers need. The conditions are not guaranteed. They are the object of policy, and they are the subject of the research that this book hopes to provoke.

The book's argument, compressed to a sentence, is that green governance capability is built, not bought, and that the building is the climb. The sentence is simple, and the simplicity is deceptive. The building requires measurement, process, and coordination; it requires the right institutional environment; it requires buyers who demand and regulators who stabilize; it requires firms that treat the environmental question as a strategic question rather than a compliance question. The requirements are demanding, and they are achievable. The Shunde factory is the proof, and the proof is modest. A coating line, a recovery unit, an engineer with a spreadsheet. The modest proof is the point. The climb is not a leap. It is a series of small steps, taken in the right direction, with the right support, over a long enough horizon.

The horizon is the remaining question. The dual carbon goals set a deadline of 2060 for carbon neutrality, and the deadline is a policy commitment, not a prediction. The firms that will meet it are the firms that are building capability now. The firms that are not building capability now will meet it by exiting, or they will not meet it at all. The choice is not evenly distributed, and the policy that shapes the choice is the subject of this book. The book ends where the policy begins: with the recognition that capability is endogenous, that it can be built, and that the building is the work of the next decade.

10.6 References

Barney, J. (1991). Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of Management, 17(1), 99–120.

Dechezleprêtre, A., and Sato, M. (2017). The impacts of environmental regulations on competitiveness. Review of Environmental Economics and Policy, 11(2), 183–206.

Gereffi, G., Humphrey, J., and Sturgeon, T. (2005). The governance of global value chains. Review of International Political Economy, 12(1), 78–104.

Kaplinsky, R., and Morris, M. (2002). A Handbook for Value Chain Research. Ottawa: IDRC.

Nidumolu, R., Prahalad, C. K., and Rangaswami, M. R. (2009). Why sustainability is now a key driver of innovation. Harvard Business Review, 87(9), 57–64.

Peteraf, M. A. (1993). The cornerstones of competitive advantage: a resource-based view. Strategic Management Journal, 14(3), 179–191.

Porter, M. E., and Kramer, M. R. (2011). Creating shared value. Harvard Business Review, 89(1/2), 62–77.

Porter, M. E., and van der Linde, C. (1995). Toward a new conception of the environment-competitiveness relationship. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 9(4), 97–118.

Sirmon, D. G., Hitt, M. A., and Ireland, R. D. (2007). Managing firm resources in dynamic environments to create value: looking inside the black box. Academy of Management Review, 32(1), 273–292.

Van Tulder, R., and van der Zwart, A. (2006). International Business-Society Management: Linking Corporate Responsibility and Globalisation. London: Routledge.