Final answer:
Controls such as command-and-control regulations in environmental protection are only as effective as the predetermined standards they enforce. They tend to be rigid, offering no incentive for firms to exceed the requirements, and continual improvement.
Step-by-step explanation:
Controls are essential in various aspects of business and regulation, particularly in environmental regulation. However, the effectiveness of these controls is highly dependent upon the predetermined standards they aim to enforce. Command-and-control regulation is a clear example of this as it sets specific limits for pollution emissions and mandates specific pollution-control technologies.
Although these regulations have been instrumental in environmental protection, they come with significant shortcomings. One primary issue is that once the mandated standards are satisfied, there is often no additional incentive for firms to pursue further environmental improvements.
Moreover, the command-and-control approach to regulation is criticized for its inflexibility. It frequently applies uniform standards to all entities regardless of individual circumstances, which could range from technological capabilities to the costs associated with compliance. Such rigidity prevents companies from adopting innovative methods that could potentially reduce pollution more efficiently and at a lower cost.
In conclusion, the effectiveness of controls in encouraging beyond-compliance behavior and promoting innovation is only as good as the standards upon which they are based. Without properly designed standards that encourage continuous improvement and allow for flexibility, controls are likely only to achieve minimum compliance, not the ongoing progress needed for sustainable environmental protection.