4.7 Article

Decisions for Blockchain Adoption and Information Sharing in a Low Carbon Supply Chain

期刊

MATHEMATICS
卷 10, 期 13, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/math10132233

关键词

low-carbon supply chain; blockchain; value-added service; information sharing; game theory

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study examines the adoption of blockchain technology and information sharing in a low-carbon supply chain. The results suggest that supply chain members are more likely to adopt blockchain technology in the absence of sharing or in voluntary sharing scenarios. Mandatory sharing leads to participation in blockchain when the value-added service efficiency exceeds a threshold value.
Enterprises in low-carbon supply chains have been exploring blockchain technology in order to make carbon data transparent. However, there is still some opaque information in the market, such as the value-added service efficiency. How do supply chain members make decisions between information sharing and blockchain adoption? This study considers blockchain adoption and information sharing in a low-carbon supply chain with a single manufacturer and a single retailer. The retailer has private information about value-added services and decides how to share it with the manufacturer. We examine six combined strategies comprised of blockchain scenarios and information sharing formats (no sharing, voluntary sharing, and mandatory sharing). The results indicate that supply chain members prefer blockchain technology under no sharing and voluntary sharing. Under mandatory sharing, supply chain members have incentives to participate in blockchain when the value-added service efficiency exceeds a threshold value. While the manufacturer prefers to obtain the value-added service information, the retailer decides to share information depending on the value-added service efficiency. Besides, supply chain members' attitude toward the sharing contract also depends on the value-added service efficiency.

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