4.6 Article

Vertical value-added cost information sharing in a supply chain

期刊

ANNALS OF OPERATIONS RESEARCH
卷 329, 期 1-2, 页码 781-814

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s10479-021-04021-3

关键词

Value-added services; Information asymmetry; Game theory; Two-echelon supply chain; Equilibrium strategy

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study investigates the issue of information sharing and pricing strategies between a retailer and manufacturers in a two-tier supply chain using game theory. The study finds that information sharing does not always lead to a win-win situation, and the attitudes towards information sharing vary among the retailer and manufacturers under different cost efficiencies.
We study a two-echelon supply chain with two homogeneous manufacturers and one common retailer who has full knowledge about his own value-added service cost structure that is unknown to the manufacturers. The retailer may choose to disclose his cost information to the manufacturers. Using a three-stage game-theoretic model, we derive optimal pricing strategies for each participant, and optimal information sharing strategies, and the optimal level of the value-added services for the retailer. Our study also reveals when the manufacturers should accept the disclosed information by the retailer. It is shown that information sharing does not always create a win-win situation among the partners in the supply chain. When the value-added service cost efficiency is low, the retailer is willing to share complete information with the manufacturers; however, information sharing harms the manufacturers' profits if they accept the shared information. In contrast, when the value-added service cost efficiency is high, the common retailer has no incentive to share information with the manufacturers and the unique equilibrium is no information sharing. Finally, we utilize a revenue-sharing contract to achieve supply chain coordination and induce information sharing under asymmetric information.

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

4.6
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