4.7 Article

The strategic analysis of logistics service sharing in an e-commerce platform

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.omega.2019.102153

关键词

Logistics service sharing; E-commerce; Hybrid platform; Coopetition

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [71972081, 71922008, 71702093]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In e-commerce, the success of hybrid online platforms is well documented where the platform not only works as a retailer but also offers online marketplace services to sellers. Logistics service is one of the most expensive operations for e-commerce and plays a critical role in promoting online purchases. In most cases, the platform builds a self-supporting logistics service system to deliver its own products, and the seller outsources the logistics service to third-party logistics service providers (TPLPs). Recently, the e-commerce market has emerged with a new trend of business-to-business logistics service sharing-the platform shares its logistics service system with the seller. In this paper, we first analyze the strategic and economic impacts of logistics service sharing. Our analysis shows that whereas logistics service sharing will lead to a lose-win situation for the platform and the seller when the TPLP's logistics service level and the market potential are low, it will lead to a win-lose situation when the TPLP's logistics service level or the market potential is very high. Furthermore, a win-win situation can be achieved when the TPLP's logistics service level and the market potential are in the middle regions. Then, we examine the equilibrium mode by considering the strategic interactions between the platform and the seller. We find that when the TPLP's logistics service level and the market potential are relatively low, the equilibrium mode is No-Service-Sharing. As the TPLP's logistics service level, the market potential, or both increase, the equilibrium mode will evolve from No-Service-Sharing to Service-Sharing. (C) 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据