Abstract
The optimal decision-making of the low-carbon supply chain incorporating fairness concerns, such as the effort of reducing carbon emissions, the whole sale price and retail price, is analyzed by taking the Nash bargaining solution as the fairness reference point. The following conclusions are found. Firstly, the wholesale price is strongly influenced by the fairness concern of the manufacturer but weakly influenced by that of the retailer, although both statistically significantly. Secondly, both the manufacturer’s and retailer’s fairness concerns reduce carbon emissions dramatically to nearly the same extent. Thirdly, the effect of the manufacturer’s fairness concern on the retail price is so tiny that it can almost be ignored, while the retailer’s fairness concern changes the retail price remarkably.
Supported by National Social Science Foundation of China (16CGL017)
References
[1] Michel L, Jasmin B, Guido B F. Targeting consumers who are willing to pay more for environmentally friendly products. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 2001, 18(6): 503–520.10.1108/EUM0000000006155Search in Google Scholar
[2] Saif B, Li Y Z, Mark D. Carbon footprint and the management of supply chains: Insights from simple models. IEEE Transactions on Automation Science & Engineering, 2013, 10(1): 99–116.10.1109/TASE.2012.2203304Search in Google Scholar
[3] Zhang J J, Nie T F, Du S F. Optimal emission-dependent production policy with stochastic demand. International Journal of Society Systems Science, 2011, 3(1): 21–39.10.1504/IJSSS.2011.038931Search in Google Scholar
[4] Mohamad Y J, Christoph H G, Ahmed M A. Supply chain coordination with emissions reduction incentives. International Journal of Production Research, 2013, 51(1): 9–82.Search in Google Scholar
[5] Song J P, Leng M M. Analysis of the single-period problem under carbon emissions policies. Handbook of Newsvendor Problems, the series International Series in Operations Research & Management Science, 2012, 176: 297–313.10.1007/978-1-4614-3600-3_13Search in Google Scholar
[6] Xie X P, Zhao D Z, Liu Y J. Revrnue sharing consignment contract of low-carbon supply chain with carbon-emission sensitive demand. Journal of Systems & Management, 2015, 24(1): 107–115.Search in Google Scholar
[7] Liu X D, Wang Q. An optimal emission mechanism of sustainability of China: How to achieve a win-win solution between economy and environment? Journal of Systems Science and Information, 2016, 4(6): 534–546.10.21078/JSSI-2016-534-13Search in Google Scholar
[8] Li J, Shu Q, Ma L. Carbon trading model on supply chain under carbon emissions constraint. Chinese Journal of Management Science, 2016, 24(10): 54–63.Search in Google Scholar
[9] Li X F, Qin Q, Gao Y. Optimal implementation strategy of carbon emission reduction policy instruments in consideration of cost efficiency. Journal of Systems Science and Information, 2017, 5(2): 111–127.10.21078/JSSI-2017-111-17Search in Google Scholar
[10] Christoph H L, Wu Y Z. Social preferences and supply chain performance: An experimental study. Management Science, 2008, 54(11): 1835–1849.10.1287/mnsc.1080.0910Search in Google Scholar
[11] Elena K, Valery P. Fairness in supply chain contracts: A laboratory study. Journal of Operations Management, 2014, 31(2): 129–137.Search in Google Scholar
[12] Choi S, Messinger P R. The role of fairness in competitive supply chain relationships: An experimental study. European Journal of Operational Research, 2016, 251(1): 798–813.10.1016/j.ejor.2015.12.001Search in Google Scholar
[13] Cui T H T, Raju J S, Zhang J. Fairness and channel coordination. Management Science, 2007, 53(8): 1303–1314.10.1287/mnsc.1060.0697Search in Google Scholar
[14] Ozgun C D, Chen Y H, Li J B. Channel coordination under fairness concerns and nonlinear demand. European Journal of Operational Research, 2010, 207(4): 1321–1326.10.1016/j.ejor.2010.07.017Search in Google Scholar
[15] Yang J, Xie J X, Deng X X, et al. Cooperative advertising in a distribution channel with fairness concerns. European Journal of Operational Research. 2013, 227(2): 401–407.10.1016/j.ejor.2012.12.011Search in Google Scholar
[16] Teck H, Su X M, Wu Y Z. Distributional and peer induced fairness in supply chain contract design. Production and Operations Management, 2014, 23(2): 161–175.10.1111/poms.12064Search in Google Scholar
[17] Chen J L, Zhao X B, Shen Z J. Risk mitigation benefit from backup suppliers in the presence of the horizontal fairness concern. Decision Sciences, 2015, 46(4): 663–696.10.1111/deci.12157Search in Google Scholar
[18] Zhang F, Ma J H. Research on the complex features about a dual-channel supply chain with a fair caring retailer. Communications in Nonlinear Science and Numerical Simulation, 2016, 30(1): 151–167.10.1016/j.cnsns.2015.06.009Search in Google Scholar
[19] Nie T F, Du S F. Dual-fairness supply chain with quantity discount contracts. European Journal of Operational Research, 2017, 258(1): 491–500.10.1016/j.ejor.2016.08.051Search in Google Scholar
[20] Li Y, Zhao D Z. Low-carbon Supply chain coordination with contracts considering fairness concerns. Journal of Industrial Engineering & Engineering Management, 2015, 29(1): 156–161.Search in Google Scholar
[21] Zhou Y J, Bao M J, Chen X H, et al. Co-op advertising and emission reduction cost sharing contracts and coordination in low-carbon supply chain based on fairness concerns. Journal of Cleaner Production, 2016, 133(3): 402–413.10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.05.097Search in Google Scholar
[22] Fehr E, Schmidt K M. A theory of fairness, competition and cooperation. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 1999, 114(1): 817–868.10.1162/003355399556151Search in Google Scholar
[23] Du S F, Nie T F, Chu C B, et al. Newsvendor model for a dyadic supply chain with Nash bargaining fairness concerns. International Journal of Production Research, 2014, 52(9): 5070–5085.10.1080/00207543.2014.895446Search in Google Scholar
© 2019 Walter De Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston
Articles in the same Issue
- Education for Sustainability: Lessons from Living Systems Governance
- Interval-Valued Dual Hesitant Fuzzy Hamacher Aggregation Operators for Multiple Attribute Decision Making
- A Global Seamless Hybrid Constellation Design Approach with Restricted Ground Supporting for Space Information Network
- High-precision Positioning and Deformation Monitoring Analysis of BD/GPS Based on Improved Kalman Filter Fusion
- Optimal Decision-Making of Low-Carbon Supply Chain Incorporating Fairness Concerns
Articles in the same Issue
- Education for Sustainability: Lessons from Living Systems Governance
- Interval-Valued Dual Hesitant Fuzzy Hamacher Aggregation Operators for Multiple Attribute Decision Making
- A Global Seamless Hybrid Constellation Design Approach with Restricted Ground Supporting for Space Information Network
- High-precision Positioning and Deformation Monitoring Analysis of BD/GPS Based on Improved Kalman Filter Fusion
- Optimal Decision-Making of Low-Carbon Supply Chain Incorporating Fairness Concerns