零售商竞争下考虑产品商誉的纵向联合促销微分博弈

将产品商誉作为状态变量,借助微分博弈研究由单个制造商和两个竞争性零售商组成的供应链纵向联合促销问题.在产品需求受商誉和零售商促销努力的共同影响下,分别构建集中式和分散式微分博弈模型,引入成本分担契约对供应链进行协调,并通过算例对相关参数进行灵敏度分析.研究表明:成本分担契约的引入可提高零售商促销努力水平、产品商誉以及需求量,实现供应链协调;随着零售商竞争程度以及促销努力成本系数的增加,引入契约后供应链成员的利润增加值呈下降趋势;相反,随着零售商促销努力以及产品商誉对需求影响程度的增加,供应链成员的利润增加值呈上升趋势.     

考虑双重低碳宣传补贴的供应链碳减排优化

考虑由一个制造商主导的一个零售商构成的供应链,研究供应链的合作减排及低碳宣传问题,运用斯坦伯格博弈理论分别构建了制造商给予零售商的单一低碳宣传补贴（SS）以及政府给予制造商、制造商给予零售商的双重低碳宣传补贴（DS）的分散决策博弈模型,得到最优的减排水平、低碳宣传努力程度以及低碳宣传成本分摊比例。通过比较分析发现：当政府补贴系数超过一定值时,DS模式下供应链利润、制造商利润、零售商利润、减排水平、低碳宣传努力程度及低碳宣传成本分摊比例均优于SS模式;政府补贴系数的增加、减排难度的降低及零售商的宣传努力成本系数降低会增加制造商、零售商以及供应链利润。最后运用算例验证了模型的有效性。     

考虑零售商竞争的联合减排与低碳宣传微分对策

借助微分博弈研究由单个制造商与两个零售商组成的供应链系统中长期联合减排和低碳宣传的问题。在消费者需求受产品减排量和零售商低碳宣传努力影响的情况下,构建了3种微分博弈模型。研究发现,在一定条件下,成本分担契约可以实现制造商和零售商利润的Pareto改善,而且处于稳定状态时,随着竞争强度的增加,制造商和整个供应链系统的利润逐渐上升,零售商的利润逐渐下降。最后,通过算例对模型进行了分析。     

三级低碳供应链联合减排及宣传促销微分博弈研究

低碳环境下,研究供应商、制造商与零售商组成的三级供应链联合减排及宣传促销微分博弈问题.首先,通过两次成本加成,考虑产品需求受产品减排量、零售商宣传促销努力及产品零售价格的综合影响,得到供应链分散决策与集中决策情形下的动态均衡策略及减排量的最优轨迹.然后,通过数值算例及灵敏度分析比较两种情形下的结果,研究发现:无论分散决策还是集中决策,减排量,产品批发价,供应商、制造商、零售商的努力水平都随时间逐渐增加至某一稳定值,但集中决策的稳定值大于分散决策相应的稳定值;随着供应商、制造商各自的减排努力对产品减排率的影响系数及零售商的宣传促销努力对产品需求的影响系数的增大,减排量、产品批发价、供应链成员努力水平、供应链成员利润、供应链总利润都会增加;集中决策的供应链总利润总是大于分散决策的供应链总利润.最后,对集中决策总利润用多人联盟博弈的多目标决策合作博弈方法进行分配,实现了供应链系统整体绩效的提升.     

双重补贴下考虑低碳商誉的供应链决策和协调

考虑低碳和回收补贴政策,对供应链中上游制造商碳减排和再制造,下游零售商低碳宣传共同提高产品低碳商誉的现实问题展开分析.将低碳商誉水平作为状态变量,构建非协同和协同情形下的微分博弈模型.通过对比分析,设计利润共享-低碳宣传成本共担的协调机制.研究表明:各情形下的低碳商誉水平均会随着时间逐渐达到稳定状态;双重补贴不仅能够激励制造商的低碳行为,还能有效提高产品低碳商誉和成员绩效,但是不会影响零售商的低碳宣传水平;非协同情形导致供应链效率的损失,协调时保持低碳宣传成本分担比例高于利润分享比例可有效改善低碳商誉水平.此外,制造商适当提高其成本分担比例有利于成员利润的改善.     

考虑权力结构与股权合作的低碳闭环供应链生产决策及协调

低碳时代传统制造业的成本构成以及盈利模式已被彻底颠覆,考虑再制造及碳减排的闭环供应链生产决策及协调优化值得关注.在3种渠道权力结构下,构建零售商持股制造商减排投资的闭环供应链决策模型,分析权力结构与股权合作对闭环供应链生产决策及企业利润的影响,探讨股权合作与两部定价契约的协调效果.研究发现,不同权力结构的闭环供应链需选择合适的持股比例,零售商主导下更高的持股比例产生更高的回收率、碳减排量及市场需求,而Nash博弈下则相反.有主导者的权力结构中,零售商持股比例的增加能够提高主导企业的利润;无主导者的权力结构中,企业利润的增减受持股比例与消费者低碳偏好的共同影响.无论何种权力结构,股权合作仅能实现闭环供应链的部分协调,通过两部定价契约可实现完美协调.     

两级供应链减排与促销的合作策略研究

首先假设在由零售商主导的供应链中, 制造商的低碳声誉和零售商的促销都能增加产品的需求, 减排对制造商的低碳声誉有正面影响; 然后运用微分博弈理论, 比较了不合作、成本分担契约以及合作3 个契约对供应链成员的影响. 研究发现, 制造商和零售商的促销及减排水平在合作契约下最高, 但供应链的总价值在合作契约下最大是有条件的. 当存在合作价值时, 为了使制造商和零售商获得更多的价值设计了利润共享契约.     

两级供应链减排与促销的合作策略

首先假设在由零售商主导的供应链中,制造商的低碳声誉和零售商的促销都能增加产品的需求,减排对制造商的低碳声誉有正面影响;然后运用微分博弈理论,比较了不合作、成本分担契约以及合作3个契约对供应链成员的影响.研究发现,制造商和零售商的促销及减排水平在合作契约下最高,但供应链的总价值在合作契约下最大是有条件的.当存在合作价值时,为了使制造商和零售商获得更多的价值设计了利润共享契约.     

滞后效应影响下低碳供应链减排投入与零售定价

考虑减排投资效果滞后效应的影响,构建低碳供应链纵向合作减排微分博弈模型.运用微分对策理论,得到分散式决策和集中式决策下低碳供应链的最优减排努力投入、宣传努力投入和零售定价策略,以及分散式决策下制造商的合作减排支付比例,并对不同决策机制下供应链成员的均衡策略进行比较分析.研究发现:集中式决策下,制造商减排努力投入和零售商宣传努力投入均高于分散式决策下的相应值;滞后时间存在一个阈值,只有滞后时间低于该阈值时,集中式决策才能提升整个供应链系统的经济绩效.     

模糊闭环供应链的定价与销售努力决策

从期望利润最大化的角度研究了单周期两级模糊闭环供应链的定价与销售努力最优决策问题。分析了包含一个制造商和一个零售商的闭环供应链中的模糊不确定性及需求依赖于零售价格和零售商销售努力的性质,分别建立了集中式决策模型和零售商主导的Stackelberg 博弈模型并进行了求解。数值算例验证了模型的有效性,结论表明：考虑销售努力时产品的最优零售价格、批发价格分别高于不考虑销售努力情形下的相应价格;考虑销售努力时零售商和系统的最大期望利润分别大于不考虑销售努力情形下的最大期望利润。     

碳限额与交易机制和消费者低碳偏好下的供应链减排及融资策略

在碳限额与交易机制和消费者对低碳产品存在偏好的背景下,考虑由一个资金约束的制造商与一个资金充裕的零售商构成的供应链,针对银行贷款(BF)、提前支付折扣(APD)和提前支付回购(APB)3种融资方式,构建制造商主导的以企业利润最大化为目标的博弈模型,研究不同融资方式下低碳供应链的减排与定价决策,以及制造商的融资方式选择问题.研究表明:1)在3种融资方式下,减排投资成本系数的增加会降低制造商的最优单位产品碳减排量.2)提前支付下制造商的最优单位产品碳减排量始终高于BF方式.当碳交易价格较高或减排投资成本系数较高时,APB方式下制造商的碳减排量最高;否则,APD方式下制造商的碳减排量最高.3)与BF方式相比,提前支付更能提升制造商的利润,且制造商在APB方式下获利最多.     

基于微分博弈的供应链合作减排和政府补贴策略

低碳背景下,将产品的减排量作为状态变量,借助微分博弈研究由供应商和制造商组成的两级供应 链长期动态合作减排和政府补贴策略问题.分别构建集中式和无成本分担的分散式微分博弈模型,并通过引入成本分担契约实现供应链系统利润的Pareto改善,得出并比较了3种决策情形下供应商和制造商各自相应的最优反馈均衡策略,以及产品减排量随时间变化的最优轨迹;然后,讨论政府补贴行为与企业选择合作减排行为之间的互动博弈,发现政府减排补贴的引入改变了3种决策情形下供应链成员的最优减排努力水平和利润的大小;最后,通过算例对相关参数进行灵敏度分析,验证了结论的有效性,为供应链上下游企业长期开展合作减排以及政府制定补贴政策提供了科学依据.     

Ordering and returns handling decisions and coordination in a supply chain with demand uncertainty

We develop a newsvendor model to study the retailer's order quantity, the manufacturer's returns handling strategy, and channel coordination. The manufacturer chooses one of two returns handling strategies: manufacturer handling or retailer handling under the coordinated and decentralized scenarios, respectively. Under the coordinated scenario, we find that when consumer's returns handling cost under manufacturer handling or the manufacturer's returns handling cost is small, consumer returns should be handled by the manufacturer. Under the decentralized scenario, when the retailer's returns handling cost or the consumer's returns handling cost under retailer handling is low, the manufacturer will choose manufacturer handling; both the manufacturer and the retailer may be better off using manufacturer handling (a win–win situation). The impact of the returns handling strategy on the retailer's ordering quantity largely depends on its effect on the consumer's returns handling cost. Finally, we also design buyback contracts to coordinate the supply chain and find that both wholesale price and buyback price under manufacturer handling are higher than those under retailer handling.     

Trade credit insurance in a capital‐constrained supply chain

We examine the role of trade credit insurance in a capital‐constrained supply chain with one (or two) loss‐neutral retailer(s) and one loss‐averse manufacturer. We model the interplay between these supply chain participants as a Stackelberg game and analyze their operating and financing decisions. In one capital‐constrained retailer case, we find that either the manufacturer's high loss aversion level or the retailer's low initial capital motivates the manufacturer to adopt insurance. Insurance drives more credit financing with more attractive financing terms (a lower wholesale price), which promotes the manufacturer to collect better product sales and performance. Although the retailer enjoys improved profit from insurance, its default risk increases. In contrast, in one capital‐constrained retailer and one well‐funded retailer scenario, numerically, when the manufacturer's loss aversion level is high or the weak retailer's initial capital is low, insurance is also adopted but is not always preferred by the capital‐constrained retailer due to competition. In addition, as the demand substitution rate increases, the manufacturer is more likely to prefer insurance due to better performance.     

Cooperative advertising in a capacitated manufacturer–retailer supply chain: a game‐theoretic approach

To achieve a more realistic understanding of how the supply chain's components interact, it is helpful to consider the operational limitations of the underlying supply chain while analyzing cooperative advertising. This paper studies cooperative advertising in a manufacturer–retailer supply chain under the practical operational assumption that the manufacturer's production capacity is limited. The retailer advertises locally, and the manufacturer advertises in national media and supports part of the retailer's promotional costs. Equilibria are determined under two different scenarios. In the first scenario, both retailer and manufacturer move simultaneously, while in the second scenario, they move sequentially, with the manufacturer being the leader. The sales function is a bivariate version of the diminishing returns response function. When the production capacity is unlimited, several important properties can be proven, which cannot be shown analytically for the existing sales functions. Considering the production‐capacity constraint leads to new managerial insights into cooperative advertising. For example, only if the production capacity is large enough, both manufacturer and retailer are better off under the second scenario than the first scenario. In other words, the sequential move is not necessarily Pareto‐improving when the production capacity is limited. It is also observed that, under the first scenario, there are multiple equilibria whenever the production capacity is not too high. Under the second scenario, the manufacturer supports the retailer only when the retailer's margin is relatively small compared to the manufacturer's margin and production capacity.