主管:中国科学院
主办:中国优选法统筹法与经济数学研究会
   中国科学院科技战略咨询研究院

中国管理科学 ›› 2023, Vol. 31 ›› Issue (12): 228-239.doi: 10.16381/j.cnki.issn1003-207x.2022.0881

• • 上一篇    

分类回收费用承担模式对回收渠道影响及协调机制研究

夏西强1,路梦圆1,陈彪1(),巫瑞2   

  1. 1.郑州大学商学院,河南 郑州 450001
    2.中国社会科学院大学继续教育学院,北京 102488
  • 收稿日期:2022-04-24 修回日期:2022-08-12 出版日期:2023-12-15 发布日期:2024-01-06
  • 通讯作者: 陈彪 E-mail:chenbiao@zzu.edu.cn
  • 基金资助:
    国家自然科学基金资助重大项目(72192833);教育部人文社会科学研究项目(21YJC630140)

Research on the Impact of the Classification Recycling Expenses Bearing Mode on the Recovery Channels and the Coordination Mechanism

Xi-qiang XIA1,Meng-yuan LU1,Biao Chen1(),Rui Wu2   

  1. 1.School of Business, Zhengzhou University, Zhengzhou 450001, China
    2.School of Continuing Education, University of Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, Beijing 102488, China
  • Received:2022-04-24 Revised:2022-08-12 Online:2023-12-15 Published:2024-01-06
  • Contact: Biao Chen E-mail:chenbiao@zzu.edu.cn

摘要:

分类回收是提高资源利用效率的重要路径,但回收渠道会受分类回收费用承担模式的影响。为了厘清其内在关系以更好地开展分类回收活动,基于分类回收费用不同承担模式,构建由一个回收商和一个处理商参与的分散决策与集中决策博弈模型。研究结果表明:(1)分类回收可以同时增加回收商和处理商收益,但是,只有当消费者对废旧产品价格的敏感度小于某一阈值时,处理商和回收商才愿意进行分类回收。(2)分散决策模式下,处理商和回收商共同承担分类回收费用模式优于只有其中一方承担分类回收费用模式;集中决策模式下,分类回收努力程度、废旧产品回收数量和回收渠道收益均优于分散决策情形。(3)基于纳什讨价还价成本分摊契约设计协调机制,有利于增加处理商和整个回收渠道整体收益,但该契约中回收商收益受损。(4)两部收费制契约和收益共享契约通过对纳什讨价还价成本分摊契约模型下回收渠道均衡利润进行重新分配,使得当处理商承诺支付给回收商的固定费用和分享利润的比例处于一定范围时,处理商和回收商利润均增加,也即实现供应链帕累托改善, 但是回收渠道整体利润未达到集中决策水平;(5)收益共享-成本分摊契约不仅可以增加处理商和回收商利润,还使得回收渠道整体利润实现集中决策水平,即实现供应链协调。

关键词: 分类回收, 回收渠道, 协调机制, 博弈论

Abstract:

Classified recycling is an important way to improve the efficiency of resource utilization, but the recycling channel will be affected by the cost-bearing modes of classified recycling. To analyze the impact of classified recycling costs on recycling channels, a game model of decentralized and centralized decision-making involving a recycler and a processor is constructed based on different cost-bearing modes of classified recycling. The main findings of the research are: (1)Classified recycling can increase the revenue of both the recycler and the processor, but only when consumers' sensitivity to the price of waste products is less than a certain threshold, the recycler and the processor are willing to carry out classified recycling; (2)When decentralized decision-making, both the processor and the recycler are responsible for the classified recycling costs better than only one of them is responsible for the classified recycling costs; when the centralized decision is made, the classified recycling effort, the number of waste products recycled, and the revenue of the recycling channel are better than the situation when the decentralized decision is made; (3) Designing a coordination mechanism based on Nash bargaining cost sharing contract is beneficial to increase the revenue of the processor and the recycling channel, but the revenue of the recycler is damaged in this contract model; (4) The two-part tariff contract and revenue-sharing contract, by reallocating equilibrium profits of the recycling channel under the Nash bargaining cost-sharing contract model, can increase the profits of the recycler and the processor when the ratio of fixed fees promised by the processor to the recycler and the profit sharing is within a certain range. This results in Pareto improvement in the supply chain. However, the overall profit of the recycling channel does not reach the level of centralized decision-making; (5) The revenue-sharing-cost-sharing contract not only increases the profits of of the recycler and the processor but also achieves centralized decision-making of overall profit in the recycling channel, thereby achieving supply chain coordination.

Key words: classified recycling, recycling channels, coordination mechanism, game theory

中图分类号: