Chinese Journal of Management Science >
2025 , Vol. 33 >Issue 9: 339 - 348
DOI: https://doi.org/10.16381/j.cnki.issn1003-207x.2022.2262
Carbon Audit Strategies to Managing Supplier Emission Reduction Noncompliance: Independent vs Joint
Received date: 2022-10-17
Revised date: 2023-03-06
Online published: 2025-09-29
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.
Hongyong Fu , Yifeng Lei , Bin Dan , Shuguang Zhang . Carbon Audit Strategies to Managing Supplier Emission Reduction Noncompliance: Independent vs Joint[J]. Chinese Journal of Management Science, 2025 , 33(9) : 339 -348 . DOI: 10.16381/j.cnki.issn1003-207x.2022.2262
[1] | An S, Li B, Song D, et al. Green credit financing versus trade credit financing in a supply chain with carbon emission limits[J]. European Journal of Operational Research, 2021, 292(1): 125-142. |
[2] | Chen Y, Li B, Zhang G, et al. Quantity and collection decisions of the remanufacturing enterprise under both the take-back and carbon emission capacity regulations[J]. Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, 2020, 141: 102032. |
[3] | Xu J, Qi Q, Bai Q. Coordinating a dual-channel supply chain with price discount contracts under carbon emission capacity regulation[J]. Applied Mathematical Modelling, 2018, 56: 449-468. |
[4] | Qi Q, Wang J, Bai Q. Pricing decision of a two-echelon supply chain with one supplier and two retailers under a carbon cap regulation[J]. Journal of Cleaner Production, 2017, 151: 286-302. |
[5] | Benjaafar S, Li Y, Daskin M. Carbon footprint and the management of supply chains: Insights from simple models[J]. IEEE Transactions on Automation Science and Engineering, 2013, 10(1): 99-116. |
[6] | 首都文明网. 碳排放罚款“第一单”两周内下发[EB/OL]. (2014-07-03) [2022-06-12]. . |
Capital Civilization Web. The first carbon emission fines will be issued within two weeks[EB/OL]. (2014-07-03) [2022-06-12]. . | |
[7] | Snyder S. Companies fined for GHG emiss- ions reporting errors[EB/OL]. (2013-07-26) [2022-06-12].. |
[8] | Hartmann J, Moeller S. Chain liability in multitier supply chains? Responsibility attributions for unsustainable supplier behavior[J]. Journal of Operations Management, 2014, 32(5): 281-294. |
[9] | Hoffmann N C, Yin J, Hoffmann S. Chain of blame: A multi-country study of consumer reactions towards supplier hypocrisy in global supply chains[J]. Management International Review, 2020, 60(2): 247-286. |
[10] | 碳排放交易网. 品牌企业如何推动供应链的碳管理[EB/OL].(2018-05-23)[2022-06-12]. . |
Carbon Emissions Trading Web. How the brand company drives carbon management in supply chain.[EB/OL].(2018-05-23)[2022-06-12].. | |
[11] | Zhang Y, Gu L, Guo X. Carbon audit evaluation system and its application in the iron and steel enterprises in China[J]. Journal of Cleaner Production, 2020, 248: 119204. |
[12] | Caro F, Chintapalli P, Rajaram K, et al. Improving supplier compliance through joint and shared audits with collective penalty[J]. Manufacturing & Service Operations Management, 201 8, 20(2): 363-380. |
[13] | Chen L, Lee H L. Sourcing under supplier responsibility risk: The effects of certification, audit, and contingency payment[J]. Management Science, 2016, 63(9): 2795-2812. |
[14] | Sodhi M S, Tang C S. Research opportunities in supply chain transparency[J]. Production and Operations Management, 2019, 28(12): 2946-2959. |
[15] | Cho S H, Fang X, Tayur S, et al. Combating child labor: Incentives and information disclosure in global supply chains[J]. Manufacturing & Service Operations Management, 2019, 21(3): 692-711. |
[16] | Zarei H, Rasti-Barzoki M, Moon I. A mechanism design approach to a buyer’s optimal auditing policy to induce responsible sourcing in a supply chain[J]. Journal of Environmental Management, 2020, 254: 109721. |
[17] | Plambeck E L, Taylor T A. Supplier evasion of a buyer’s audit: Implications for motivating supplier social and environmental responsibility[J]. Manufacturing & Service Operations Management, 2015, 18(2): 184-197. |
[18] | Huang L, Song J S, Swinney R. Managing social responsibility in multitier supply chains[J]. Manufacturing & Service Operations Management, 2022, 24(6): 2843-2862. |
[19] | 崔春岳, 张令荣, 杨子凡, 等. 碳配额交易政策下基于收益共享契约的两阶段供应链协调[J]. 中国管理科学, 2021, 29(7): 214-226. |
Cui C Y, Zhang L R, Yang Z F, et al. Two-stage supply chain coordination based on revenue sharing contract under carbon cap-and-trade[J]. Chinese Journal of Management Science, 2021, 29(7): 214-226. | |
[20] | 王文隆, 王成军. 基于竞争型制造商创新投入的零售商需求预测信息共享研究[J]. 中国管理科学, 2020, 28(8): 127-138. |
Wang W L, Wang C J. Retailer’s demand forecasting information sharing based on competing manufacturers’ innovation investment[J]. Chinese Journal of Management Science, 2020, 28(8): 127-138. | |
[21] | Seyedhosseini S M, Hosseini-Motlagh S M, Johari M, et al. Social price-sensitivity of demand for competitive supply chain coordination[J]. Computers & Industrial Engineering, 2019, 135: 1103-1126. |
[22] | Wang Q, Hong X, Gong Y, et al. Collusion or Not: The optimal choice of competing retailers in a closed-loop supply chain[J]. International Journal of Production Economics, 2020, 225: 107580. |
[23] | Johari M, Hosseini-Motlagh S M. Coordination of social welfare, collecting, recycling and pricing decisions in a competitive sustainable closed-loop supply chain: A case for lead-acid battery[J]. Annals of Operations Research, 2025,349: 575-610. |
[24] | 冯海荣, 曾银莲, 周杰. 碳交易机制下零售商合作的费用分配研究[J]. 中国管理科学, 2021, 29(5): 108-116. |
Feng H R, Zeng Y L, Zhou J. Cost allocation for collaborative procurement with carbon cap and trade policy[J]. Chinese Journal of Management Science, 2021, 29(5): 108-116. | |
[25] | Wu J, Zou L, Gong Y, et al. The anti-collusion dilemma: Information sharing of the supply chain under buyback contracts[J]. Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, 2021, 152: 102413. |
[26] | Yu Y, Zhou S, Shi Y. Information sharing or not across the supply chain: The role of carbon emission reduction[J]. Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, 2020, 137: 101915. |
[27] | Lee J Y, Choi S. Supply chain investment and contracting for carbon emissions reduction: A social planner’s perspective[J]. International Journal of Production Economics, 2021, 231: 107873. |
[28] | Bondareva M, Pinker E. Dynamic relational contracts for quality enforcement in supply chains[J]. Management Science, 2018, 65(3): 1305-1321. |
[29] | Fang X, Cho S H. Cooperative approaches to managing social responsibility in a market with externalities[J]. Manufacturing & Service Operations Management, 2020, 22(6): 1215-1233. |
[30] | Sim J, Kim B. Regulatory versus consumer pressure and retailer responsibility for upstream pollution in a supply chain[J]. Omega, 2021, 101: 102250. |
[31] | Chen J, Qi A, Dawande M. Supplier centrality and auditing priority in socially responsible supply chains[J]. Manufacturing & Service Operations Management, 2020, 22(6): 1199-1214. |
[32] | Chen L, Yao S, Zhu K. Responsible sourcing under supplier-auditor collusion[J]. Manufacturing & Service Operations Management, 2020, 22(6): 1234-1250. |
[33] | Lee H H, Li C. Supplier quality management: Investment, inspection, and incentives[J]. Production and Operations Management, 2018, 27(2): 304-322. |
[34] | 周晓阳, 陈可欣, 温浩宇, 等. 政府补贴下考虑零售商不同竞争行为的闭环供应链决策及合同选择[J]. 中国管理科学, 2022, 30(3): 176-188. |
Zhou X Y, Chen K X, Wen H Y, et al. Decisions and contract selection of closed-loop supply chain considering different competitive behaviors of retailers under government subsidy[J]. Chinese Journal of Management Science, 2022, 30(3): 176-188. |
/
〈 |
|
〉 |