Decision and coordination of a low-carbon supply chain considering environmental tax policy on consumers

Abstract

Purpose This paper aims to explore how upstream supply chain companies will control the carbon emissions and price decisions of products when the government implements environmental tax policy on consumers. It provides some suggestions to control carbon emissions for the government and manufacturers. Design/methodology/approach This study establishes two-echelon Stackelberg game models with and without the implementation of environmental tax policy on consumers in a centralized scenario and a decentralized scenario. Through the comparative analysis of the four models, the optimal emission abatement and pricing strategies are obtained. Findings This paper concludes that implementing environmental tax policy on consumers within the market’s acceptable range is more beneficial to the retailer and the environment, as well as the overall social welfare, except for the manufacturer. Moreover, consumer’s low-carbon preference always has a broader impact on carbon abatement and corporate profits than environmental tax coefficient. Finally, the side-payment self-executing contract can effectively ensure that the supply chain members make rational decisions spontaneously while achieving a win-win solution of centralized scenario. Originality/value This paper first considers how the government’s environmental tax policy on consumers will affect the decision-making of supply chain companies, and proposes an improved side-payment self-enforcing contract to maximize environmental and economic benefits of centralized scenario. In addition, it provides a reference for the government to adopt both the carbon cap policy and the environmental tax policy.

Impact of carbon emission difference on the dual-channel fresh produce supply chain with capital constraints

“…In recent years, scholars have paid attention to the combination of carbon emissions and supply chain. The low carbon preference of consumers will affect market demand (Sun et al, 2020;Liu J et al, 2021), thereby making the impact of carbon emissions on supplier decision-making more significant.Some scholars studied the channel selection strategy of the dual channel supply chain considering carbon emissions (Yang et al, 2018;Ghosh et al, 2020), the optimal decisionmaking problem of the supply chain under the influence of carbon emissions (Qi et al, 2018;Cao et al, 2020;Yan et al, 2021) and the supply chain coordination problem under the influence of carbon emissions (Wang C et al, 2020;Wang Z et al, 2020;Hosseini-Motlagh et al, 2021). In addition to these conventional decision-making factors, Aljazzar et al (2018) included carbon emission costs in the decisions of supplier members to improve the environment and profits of the supply chain.…”

Remanufacturing and channel strategies in e-commerce closed-loop supply chain

“…Carbon taxes are also a way for governments to regulate in order to promote sustainable development. Ma and Liu [20], and Li et al [21] both discussed the carbon tax issue. Wang and Hong analyzed the best pricing and recycling practices in a CLSC with two recycling channels where the government provides subsidies to the manufacturer or two recyclers [22].…”

Wholesale-price vs cost-sharing contracts in a green supply chain with reference price effect under different power structures

“…Such assumptions can simplify calculations and better present analytic results (Zhang et al, 2021). The green R&D cost is assumed as a quadratic function of product greenness θ (Chen et al, 2019), that is, C(θ) 5 κθ 2 , where κ represents the green R&D cost coefficient (Wang et al, 2020). The quadratic form of green R&D cost suggests that the marginal return of green innovation investment is decreasing (Ma et al, 2019a).…”