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 ›› 2025, Vol. 33 ›› Issue (9): 339-348.doi: 10.16381/j.cnki.issn1003-207x.2022.2262

• • 上一篇    下一篇

应对供应商减排不合规的碳审计策略:独立vs联合

伏红勇1(), 雷一峰1, 但斌2, 掌曙光3   

  1. 1.西南政法大学供应链合规管理研究中心,重庆 401120
    2.重庆大学经济与工商管理学院,重庆 400030
    3.新加坡国立大学重庆研究院,重庆 401123
  • 收稿日期:2022-10-17 修回日期:2023-03-06 出版日期:2025-09-25 发布日期:2025-09-29
  • 通讯作者: 伏红勇 E-mail:fuhongyong@foxmail.com
  • 基金资助:
    国家社会科学基金项目(22VRC128);国家社会科学基金项目(24BGL096);国家自然科学基金项目(7210020637);教育部人文社会科学规划项目(22XJA630001);重庆市自然科学基金博士后科学基金项目(cstc2019jcyj-bshX0080)

Carbon Audit Strategies to Managing Supplier Emission Reduction Noncompliance: Independent vs Joint

Hongyong Fu1(), Yifeng Lei1, Bin Dan2, Shuguang Zhang3   

  1. 1.Research Center of Supply Chain Compliance Management,Southwest University of Political Science and Law,Chongqing 401120,China
    2.School of Economics and Business Administration,Chongqing University,Chongqing 400030,China
    3.National University of Singapore (Chongqing) Research Institute,Chongqing 401123,China
  • Received:2022-10-17 Revised:2023-03-06 Online:2025-09-25 Published:2025-09-29
  • Contact: Hongyong Fu E-mail:fuhongyong@foxmail.com

摘要:

“双碳”目标对我国低碳发展提出了全新要求,随着碳配额上限的逐步下调,客观上增加了排放主体减排合规的不确定性。受现代汽车与起亚汽车共同供应商减排不合规事件的驱动,本文研究了两个制造商规制供应商减排不合规的碳审计策略:是应该采取“不相为谋”的独立策略,还是应该选择“相互合谋”的联合策略。研究发现:(1)对于两个制造商而言,双方合谋的联合策略并不总是占优,存在独立策略占优的可行区域,并且,在这一区域内独立策略还是“完美”的,即不仅有利于供应商碳减排合规水平的提升,而且还能保障两个制造商与供应商的收益。(2)当联合策略占优时,出乎意料地发现,联合策略是“不完美”的,也即只对供应商碳减排合规水平的提升与制造商双方有利,甚至还会出现“失灵”,此时仅对两个制造商自身有利。为此,设计了基于采购价格的碳减排合规成本分担机制,在确保提升碳减排合规水平的同时还能保障供应商的收益,从而让制造商双方的联合也能成为多方共赢的“完美”策略。(3)无论是独立还是联合,制造商双方都应该对价格溢价保持审慎态度,以防掉入“价格陷阱”,从而规避供应商碳减排合规水平降低的风险。

关键词: 低碳供应链, 碳审计, 占优策略, 合规管理

Abstract:

Carbon emissions are recognized as a major contributor to global warming. To combat climate change, many countries and regions have implemented regulations to guide enterprises to reduce carbon emissions. Therefore, the compliance or non-compliance with the carbon emission regulations becomes a critical factor in assessing enterprises’ environmental responsibility, especially in a supply chain with a supplier and two competing manufacturers. The downside effect caused by the supplier non-compliance is often attributed to the downstream manufacturers’ fault, thereby motivating the latter to conduct a audit to prevent negative impacts on their goodwill. Based on the competition theory, there are two audit strategies for the two manufacturers: independent audit and joint audit. Specifically, under independent audit, the manufacturers conduct their respective audits and impose penalties independently. Under joint audit, the manufacturers conduct a audit jointly, and impose a collective penalty if the supplier fails their joint audit. Then, which audit strategy should be choosed by the two manufacturers?To answer the above question, simultaneous game model with the supplier and the two manufacturers is used to analyze and compare the equilibrium decisions and the optimal profits under independent audit and joint audit. The study results show that, first of all, there is the feasible region that independent audit is dominant. Moreover, independent audit is a “perfect” audit strategy in this region. That is, independence audit not only can improve the supplier’s carbon reduction compliance but also can benefit the manufacturers and the supplier. Secondly, when joint audit is dominant, it is unexpectedly finds that joint audit is a “imperfect” strategy, i.e., it is only beneficial to the improvement of the supplier’s carbon emission reduction compliance and the two manufacturer’s profit, even is a “failure” strategy, that is, it is only beneficial to both manufacturers. For this, a carbon emission reduction compliance cost-sharing mechanism based on the purchase price is designed to improve the carbon emission reduction compliance and profit of the supplier, thus allowing joint audit to also become a “perfect” strategy. Finally, whether independent audit or joint audit, the two manufacturers should keep a prudent attitude toward the price premium to prevent falling into the “price trap” and thus avoid the risk of reducing carbon emission reduction compliance.In summary, through this study, it aims to comparative analysis independent audit and joint audit, and then to provide insights for how the two competing manufacturers should conduct a audit to manage the supplier non-compliance with emission reduction.

Key words: low-carbon supply chain, carbon audit, dominant strategy, compliance management

中图分类号: