As the above discussed has revealed, advantages of EIs are obvious, especially have more incentives than command and control and more cost-effectiveness. There is　no doubt Eis will be adopt on more extended basis on environmental protection in the future, however, although some of the mechanisms are self-making, whilst others, such as most charging schemes, require a regulatory framework and proper policing, so they must be seen as additional to, rather than separate from, regulatory system. Furthermore, Eis looked like less immediate and tough measures adopted to respond to the pollution crisis, and “the polluter pays principle” is also hesitated, the cost for pollution abatement will be transferred to the products, so the customer have to pay indirectly. As regards taxes, governments cannot be trusted to use the proceeds for environmental purpose; and as regards subsides, why should taxpayer support polluters?　
　　
　　Voluntary Measures
　　Voluntary measures have enjoyed a widespread diffusion and are seen as a response to the need for more flexible means to abate pollution and reduce the administrative burden of environmental regulation.
　　Three types of voluntary measures will be focused on below. (1) Environmental management system (EMS). Unlike public regulation, which imposes requirements on organizations from the outside, an EMS consists of a regulatory structure that arises from within an organization. An EMS represents a collection of internal efforts at policymaking, planning, and implementation that yields benefits for the organization as well as potential benefits for society at large.　EMSs appear to many to promise improvement in solving environmental problems. When people inside an organization take responsibility for managing environmental improvement, the internal regulatory strategies they adopt will presumably turn out to be less costly and perhaps even more effective than they would be under government-imposed standards. Moreover, when organizations have the flexibility to create their own internal regulatory approaches, they are more likely to innovate and will potentially find solutions that government standard-setters would never have considered. Finally, individuals within organizations may be more likely to see their organization’s own standards as more reasonable and legitimate, which may in turn enhance compliance with socially desirable norms　. (2) Private agreements. These agreements are more prevalent in some other countries (particularly the US and the Netherlands) , so we focus on two prevailed forms in the US. (a) Negotiated Agreements. In negotiation agreements, the regulated and regulators negotiate the targets of environmental performance that the regulated will have to reach and/or the means to reach these targets. These agreements are used as substitutes to command and control regulation. (b) Public Voluntary Programs. Participating firms voluntarily agree to adopt environmental standards that have been developed by regulatory agencies. In exchange the regulatory agency provides incentives such as subsidies, technological assistance, or positive effects on the reputation of the participants. These programs complement existing regulation.　This mechanism has started to adopt in the UK with an increasing frequency.　(3) Information based mechanism. This is a kind of voluntary mechanisms whereby environmental information is made available to the public on wider issues. For example, companies have incorporated information into annual reports, or the eco-labelling, which gives consumers the information about the environmental impacts of goods and products.

第 [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] 页 共[8]页