4.7 Article

An equilibrium model of the supply chain network under multi-attribute behaviors analysis

Journal

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF OPERATIONAL RESEARCH
Volume 275, Issue 2, Pages 514-535

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.ejor.2018.11.068

Keywords

Supply chain management; Risk-averse; Loss-averse; Regret-averse

Funding

  1. Research Committee of The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hong Kong
  2. National Natural Science Foundation of China [71771129, 71740011]
  3. Shandong Provincial Natural Science Foundation, China [ZR2016GM01]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This paper studies a supply chain network (SCN) equilibrium model considering decision makers' multi-attribute behaviors from the perspective of behavioral finance. In this paper, an equilibrium model of an uncertain SNC is constructed, in which retailers choose their decisions according to their risk-averse behavior, loss-averse behavior, and regret-averse behavior. By using different weights to represent retailers' attitudes to these three behaviors, the retailers' multi-attribute utility functions are developed. The equilibrium conditions of the manufacturers, the retailers, together with the network are established by the finite-dimensional variational inequality formulation. Three numerical examples are solved. In the first numerical example, we illustrate the effect of each of these three behaviors on the equilibrium decisions, the profits, and the utilities of the decision makers. In the other two numerical examples, we explore the effects of changes in attitudes to these three behaviors on the equilibrium decisions, profits, and utilities of the decision makers. The numerical results show that the equilibrium decisions are affected by each of these three behaviors very much. Moreover, they are sensitive to the changes in attitudes to these behaviors. (C) 2018 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available