4.7 Article

Does implementing trade-in and green technology together benefit the environment?

期刊

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF OPERATIONAL RESEARCH
卷 295, 期 2, 页码 517-533

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.ejor.2021.03.017

关键词

Supply chain management; Trade-in program; Green technology; Carbon tax Scheme; Closed-loop supply chain

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [71701135, 71991461, 71991465]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Green technologies are increasingly popular in modern manufacturing operations, while trade-in programs are widely implemented. The combination of green technology and trade-in programs may not always be beneficial to the environment. Retailer collects with green technology can lead to the highest levels of supply chain profit and social welfare, but may result in more emissions. Governments should advocate for manufacturer collects with green technology and retailer collects without green technology.
In modern manufacturing operations, green technologies are becoming increasingly popular. Meanwhile, trade-in programs are widely implemented to boost sales and enhance product recycling, which would benefit the environment. It is widely observed that many companies implement the green technology (GT) and trade-in program together. However, whether this act is always beneficial to the environment is unclear. We hence build analytical models to address this issue. To conduct a comprehensive study, we follow the real-world practices and examine both the retailer collects (R-collect) and manufacturer collects (M-collect) scenarios in a supply chain. Our results show that the R-collect scheme with GT leads to the highest levels of supply chain profit and social welfare but more emissions may be generated. Besides, implementing GT does not always benefit the environment in both R-collect and M-collect schemes. Considering from the environment perspective, we interestingly show that governments should advocate the M-collect with GT and R-collect without GT schemes. Correspondingly, to motivate both the supply chain and consumers to accept the advocated strategies, we characterize the carbon tax and subsidy based carrot-and-stick policy. We further show in the extended analyses that our main results hold under competition, when the emission abatement cost takes different analytical forms, and when consumers are environmentally conscious. (c) 2021 Elsevier B.V. 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