4.7 Article

Effects of asymmetric cost information on collection outsourcing of used products for remanufacturing

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.tre.2022.102729

关键词

Remanufacturing; Asymmetric information; Collection outsourcing; Collection efficiency; Take-back regulation

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [71702101, 72192833/72192830, 72072111]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Manufacturers often delegate third parties to collect used products for remanufacturing, and they design nonlinear pricing contracts to stimulate the third parties to select contracts that correspond to their true types. Information asymmetry can result in a decrease in the quantity collected by third parties with low collection efficiency.
Due to environmental and economic benefits from remanufacturing as well as an existing or potential take-back regulation, a manufacturer often implements remanufacturing, but it often delegates a third-party (3P) to collect used products. However, the collection efficiency is the 3P's private information while the prior distribution of the 3P's collection efficiency is possessed by the manufacturer. To maximize its expected profit, the manufacturer can design nonlinear pricing contracts to stimulate the 3P to select one that corresponds to its true type, where the nonlinear pricing contracts consist of the wholesale price and the collecting quantity. Specifically, our modeling analysis reveals that asymmetric information can result in the downward distortion of quantities collected by the 3P with low collection efficiency, whereas the quantities collected by the 3P with high collection efficiency remain unchanged. Besides, faced with information asymmetry and collection outsourcing, the manufacturer may also bring the new product quantity down if the 3P has low collection efficiency. Moreover, the take-back regulation will indirectly reduce consumer surplus, and this negative effect will be amplified by 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

4.7
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