Stakeholder Perspectives on E‐Waste Take‐Back Legislation

In this study, we compare two common forms of product take‐back legislation implementation: (i) manufacturer‐operated systems, where the state imposes certain take‐back objectives on manufacturers, and (ii) state‐operated systems, where manufacturers or consumers finance take‐back through recovery fees. We show that their impacts on different stakeholders, that is, social welfare, manufacturers, consumers, and the environment, can be significantly different and stakeholder preferences for these models vary depending on the operating environments (e.g., production and take‐back costs, and environmental externalities). We also consider the impact of operational externalities such as operating and monitoring costs, and show how they affect stakeholder preferences.     

O2O在线回收企业再售策略研究

研究了O2O在线回收企业再售策略选择问题。研究发现:当制造商单位产品生产成本和处理商单位产品回收价格较低时,在线回收企业采取全部再售策略;当处理商单位产品回收价格居中时,在线回收企业采取部分再售策略;当处理商单位产品回收价格较高时,采取无再售策略。相对无再售行为的传统第三方回收而言,再售策略下O2O在线回收企业利润较优,故在线回收企业有动力进行再售,并且再售策略下消费者剩余优于传统第三方回收,而制造商利润降低。此外,全部再售策略下在线回收企业废旧品回收量优于传统第三方回收,有助于提升产品利用率,保护环境。     

Take‐Back Legislation: Consequences for Remanufacturing and Environment

In the last two decades, many countries have enacted product take‐back legislation that holds manufacturers responsible for the collection and environmentally sound treatment of end‐of‐use products. In an industry regulated by such legislation, we consider a manufacturer that also sells remanufactured products under its brand name. Using a stylized model, we consider three levels of legislation: no take‐back legislation, legislation with collection targets, and legislation with collection and reuse targets. We characterize the optimal solution for the manufacturer and analyze how various levels of legislation affect manufacturing, remanufacturing, and collection decisions. First, we explore whether legislation with only collection targets causes an increase in remanufacturing levels, which is argued to be an environmentally friendlier option for end‐of‐use treatment than other options such as recycling. While increased remanufacturing alone is usually perceived as a favorable environmental outcome, if one considers the overall environmental impact of new and remanufactured products, this might not be the case. To study this issue, we model the environmental impact of the product following a life cycle analysis–based approach. We characterize the conditions under which increased remanufacturing due to take‐back legislation causes an increase in total environmental impact. Finally, we model the impact of legislation on consumer surplus and manufacturer profits and identify when total welfare goes down because of legislation.     

回收渠道竞争下的中国EPR制度设计研究

基于我国正规回收渠道和非正规回收渠道竞争的现状,通过构造包含新产品生产阶段和废旧产品回收处理阶段的两阶段的博弈模型,并分析了不同的目标下EPR制度的设计问题.结果表明,当回收渠道之间的成本差较小时,两种目标下的最优合同是一致的,此时政府通过提高处置费来降低市场上的废旧电器量从而降低污染;反之,两种目标下EPR制度的设计不同,此时正规回收渠道的绝对处理量最大化目标全面占优正规回收渠道的相对处理量最大化目标.此外,还发现补贴对闭环供应链中的企业和消费者而言并不总是有利的.     

A Comparison of Product Take‐Back Compliance Schemes

Product take‐back regulation, under which firms finance the collection and treatment of their end‐of‐life products, is a widely used environmental program. One of the most common compliance schemes is collectively with cost allocation by market share. As an alternative, individual compliance scheme is considered. Assuming that firms can choose their compliance scheme, we compare these two schemes with respect to the costs they impose on firms and environmental benefits. We show that high collection targets and large market shares among firms in a collective compliance scheme make it more cost‐effective. From an environmental benefits perspective, the prevailing intuition is that collection rates will be higher under collective schemes but individual compliance will provide more incentive for higher recyclability levels. Our results challenge both of these premises. We identify conditions under which collection rates are higher when firms comply individually and recyclability levels are higher when firms comply collectively and allocate costs with respect to market shares.     

Quality of Service Based Pricing Schemes for Content Sharing in Peer‐to‐Peer Networks

In this paper, we study quality‐of‐service (QoS) based pricing schemes that serve as incentive mechanisms to induce sharing behaviors in Peer‐to‐Peer (P2P) networks. We incorporate operational QoS metrics into users’ utility functions and demonstrate how they affect individual users’ content sharing decisions. Using a game‐theoretic model, our study reveals how organizations respond to the changes of operational QoS metrics in their design of pricing schemes for various business objectives at different stages of network evolution. Our results show that a higher upload capacity can foster rational sharing to start when the network is small; however, it also discourages sharing behaviors when the network becomes large. In order to induce a socially optimal behavior, a pricing scheme will not charge users for requesting content while compensating them for sharing content. Such compensation is found to increase faster with the network size when the network is large. In order to maximize the profit of a monopolistic provider, however, a pricing scheme will charge content requests with a positive price while providing less compensation to sharing users compared to the socially optimal scheme. When the network size is small, such compensation can be even negative, which implies that a monopolistic provider discourages content sharing when the network is small, but encourages it when the network becomes larger. In addition, we find that more information about peer upload capacity discourages peers to share.     

第三方回收商领导型两级闭环供应链的回收与定价策略

与一般废旧产品的回收产品再制造相比,废弃电子电器产品回收拆解后需要兼顾产品与零部件再制造,从而减少电子电器产品对环境的污染,推进资源的重复利用。为了探讨第三方回收商的回收与定价策略对供应商和制造商的影响,本文构建由单一供应商、制造商和第三方回收商组成的两级再制造闭环供应链,建立Stackelberg博弈模型,研究两级再制造情形下和仅产品再制造情形下回收商的有效回收比例、回收定价和回收努力程度等决策,并对两种再制造情形下供应链各成员的决策与收益进行对比分析。研究发现：对于回收商而言,回收数量、有效回收比例的增加有助于回收商获得更多的额外收益。如果在仅产品再制造情形下的有效回收比例较大,回收商的决策和收益主要取决于无效零部件的回收价。当无效零部件的回收价较低时,回收商在仅产品再制造情形下的决策和收益更优;反之,回收商在两级再制造情形下的决策和收益更优。对于其他供应链成员而言,两种再制造策略都能够降低供应商和制造商的定价,促进市场需求的增加。具体而言,不同的再制造策略对批发价、零售价和市场需求的影响与有效回收比例和无效零部件的回收价密切相关。     

Impact of Take‐Back Regulation on the Remanufacturing Industry

As waste from used electronic products grows steadily, manufacturers face take‐back regulations mandating its collection and proper treatment through recycling, or remanufacturing. Environmentalists greet such regulation with enthusiasm, but its effect on remanufacturing activity and industry competition remains unclear. We research these questions, using a stylized model with an original equipment manufacturer (OEM) facing competition from an independent remanufacturer (IR). We examine the effects of regulation on three key factors: remanufacturing levels, consumer surplus, and the OEM profit. First, we find that total OEM remanufacturing actually may decrease under high collection and/or reuse targets, meaning more stringent targets do not imply more remanufacturing. Consumer surplus and the OEM profit, meanwhile, may increase when OEM‐IR competition exists in a regulated market. Finally, through a numerical study, we investigate how total welfare changes in the collection target, what happens when the cost of collection is not linear, and what happens when IR products are valued differently by consumers.     

废旧电器电子产品双渠道回收模型及政府补贴作用研究

目前我国的大部分废旧电器电子产品没有得到环保回收,回收市场上存在以有拆解资质的回收处理商为主导的正规渠道和无拆解资质的回收处理商主导的非正规渠道。鉴于此,本文建立了双渠道回收竞争模型,刻画了两种渠道各自的回收处理途径和盈利模式,给出了均衡时的回收价格和翻修比例,讨论了不同竞争情景下政府补贴的影响。结果发现当补贴额度较低时,政府补贴可以有效刺激回收量的增长、扶持正规企业的发展,但随着补贴的提升,补贴对回收总量的刺激作用减弱。研究还发现当翻修品价格较高时,旧货市场的存在可以帮助正规企业牵制非正规拆解商的发展,同时提高翻修质量门槛可以限制废旧品流向非正规处理渠道。     

WEEE回收条例有效实施问题研究

分析了现行回收条例的要素和流程,采用两阶段序贯决策博弈模型比较分析3种不同回收处理模式下的利益相关主体的经济行为;以社会福利最大化为目标,研究了回收网络体系的建设、回收率的设定、回收产品目录的分类、处理行为的监管激励等问题.结论表明:制造商、处理商、消费者等相关主体对3种回收模式的偏好不一致,而制造商自行回收处理模式所带来的社会福利最大;最有效率的回收网络体系应围绕制造商单独回收责任展开;回收率的确定和回收产品目录的分类需综合考虑产品的环境影响、回收处理的成本/收益、处理行业和制造行业的市场结构;监督激励决策矩阵对生产者责任组织来说,是权衡环保收益和社会福利的一种有效工具.     

合约回收制对闭环供应链影响分析

为了提高再制造闭环供应链的运作效率,文章设计了新的回收方式——合约回收制,并研究了这种回收方式对消费者、企业和整体供应链的影响。在新产品和再造品同时存在的混合市场前提下,文章主要讨论了制造商(M模式)、经销商(R模式)和第三方回收商(3P模式)各自为回收再造主体时,合约回收制对产品定价、回收率、行业规模等因素的影响。研究结果表明:(1)消费者受益于合约回收制;(2)合约回收制壮大了闭环供应链的规模;(3)回收率与再造品评价成正比,与新产品评价成反比,其中R模式和3P模式中回收率因合约回收制而提高;(4)制造商均受益于合约回收制,但经销商和第三方需满足部分条件才可获益。     

基于政府回收处理基金的O2O在线回收企业回收再售策略研究

研究了政府处理基金对O2O在线回收企业回收再售策略的影响，研究发现：当政府对制造商征收的处理基金较低时，随着补贴水平的增大，在线回收企业回收再售策略依次为：部分回收全部再售、部分回收部分再售、部分回收无再售以及全部回收无再售。若处理基金征收额度进一步增大，则部分回收部分再售策略将分化为部分回收部分再售和全部回收部分再售；而部分回收无再售策略将转变为全部回收无再售。当政府处理基金较高时，在线回收企业选择全部回收，但再售策略随政府补贴的增大依次为：全部再售、部分再售和无再售。进一步分析发现，制造商与在线回收企业利润都在政府处理基金较低，而补贴水平较高的全部回收无再售策略下取得全局最优，此时回收量也最大。此外，还发现政府处理基金和补贴会对消费者剩余造成负面影响。     

基于多Agent模型的闭环供应链竞争性多回收商双契约选择研究

多回收商相互竞争是当前我国众多闭环供应链的典型特征。为了有效协调竞争性的多回收商决策,再制造企业需要同时提供两种以上的回收契约,以有效识别不同类型的回收商。闭环供应链中多个回收商彼此相互竞争,从而对闭环长期协调产生重要的影响。这与当前常见的闭环供应链理论研究中的单一链条结构和单一回收契约的理论假设有明显的不同。新的模型中,回收商的回收量与自身回收价格成正比,与竞争对手回收价格成反比。回收商在进行回收价格决策时,同时考虑再制造商的收购价格、自身的成本、诸多竞争对手的反应和不同回收契约对自身的影响,追求自身利益的最大化。采用多Agent模型,构建了一个单再制造商——多回收商组成的闭环供应链模型。在该模型中,回收商彼此相互竞争,同时面临简单价格契约和数量契约两种不同契约,且对回收成本进行不断优化。根据对某企业的实际调研,对模型参数进行了赋值,并通过数值模拟,得出以下结论:双契约选择较单契约更加有利于闭环供应链协调;多回收商竞争时,不存在一个稳定的收敛价格;回收成本下降对闭环供应链长期优化有重要的价值。本文结论更好解释了我国闭环供应链实践的现状,拓展了理论研究范围,为闭环供应链参与方的决策提供了理论支持,且便于再制造商实践。     

How Does Product Recovery Affect Quality Choice?

We study the impact of product recovery on a firm's product quality choice, where quality is defined as an observable performance measure that increases a consumer's valuation for the product. We consider three general forms of product recovery: (i) when product recovery reuses (after reprocessing) quality inducing components or material (e.g., remanufacturing), (ii) when product recovery does not reuse quality inducing components or material but it is overall profitable (e.g., cell phone recycling), and (iii) when product recovery is costly (but mandated by legislation, e.g., recycling of small appliances in the European Union). Using a stylized economic model, we show that the form of product recovery, recovery cost structure, and the presence of product take‐back legislation play an important role in quality choice. Generally speaking, product recovery increases the firm's quality choice, except for some instances of recovery form (ii). In addition, we find that product take‐back legislation can lead to higher quality choice as opposed to voluntary take‐back. We further demonstrate that both the firm and the consumers benefit from recovery form (ii), while both are worse off with recovery form (iii). However, environmental implications of the three recovery modes differ from their impact on consumer surplus and firm profit. While recovery forms (i) and (iii) reduce consumption and increase environmental benefits, the same is not true with recovery form (ii), which can increase consumption, potentially resulting in higher environmental impact.     

Extended Producer Responsibility for E‐Waste: Individual or Collective Producer Responsibility?

We investigate the implications of collective and individual producer responsibility (CPR and IPR, respectively) models of product take‐back laws for e‐waste on manufacturers’ design for product recovery (DfR) choices and profits, and on consumer surplus in the presence of product competition. We show that IPR offers superior DfR incentives as compared to CPR, and provides a level competitive ground. CPR may distort competition and allow free‐riding on DfR efforts to reduce product recovery costs. Thus, manufacturer preferences for IPR or CPR may differ because of the free‐riding implications under CPR, with even high‐end manufacturers having incentives to free‐ride under certain competitive conditions. The policy choice between IPR and CPR is not clear cut from an economic welfare perspective. This choice involves a comparison between the effects of superior recovery cost reduction through improved DfR under IPR and the operational cost‐efficiency under CPR.     

闭环供应链上的回收激励契约设计与政府补贴再制造政策的优化

废旧工业产品的回收再制造活动具有较大的正向外部经济特性,常常导致企业从事该项活动的动力不足。从节约资源和保护环境的目的出发,各国政府大都制定了给予补贴以鼓励回收再制造活动的政策。而且新产品和再制造产品一般具有一定的感知价值差异,可能会影响到再制造成本优势的发挥。将政府也作为一个决策主体,建立了以政府为领导者、制造商和再制造商、回收商为跟随者的三级非线性闭环供应链上的Stackelberg主从博弈模型,其中嵌套了基于委托代理关系分析基本技术框架的再制造商对回收商回收努力的最优激励契约。分析求解了政府和制造商、再制造商等的最优决策。政府的补贴政策将有效提高再制造品的竞争优势,同时有效降低废旧产品的掩埋等处理成本,有利于生态环境的保护。政府最优补贴下再制造商对回收商的最优激励机制设计可以有效提高废旧工业品的回收再制造效率。新产品和再制造产品的相互替代程度将间接影响到政府的最优补贴决策。同时通过数值分析得到再制造的比较成本优势对闭环供应链决策的影响。可供政府有关部门在政策制定以及闭环供应链上的企业决策时参考。     

Competition and The Operational Performance of Hospitals: The Role of Hospital Objectives

We examine the effect of a hospital's objective (i.e., non‐profit vs. for‐profit) in hospital markets for elective care. Using game‐theoretic analysis and queueing models to capture the operational performance of hospitals, we compare the equilibrium behavior of three market settings in terms of such criteria as waiting times and patient costs from waiting and hospital payments. In the first setting, a monopoly, patients are served exclusively by a single non‐profit hospital; in the second, a homogeneous duopoly, patients are served by two competing non‐profit hospitals. In our third setting, a heterogeneous duopoly, the market is served by one non‐profit hospital and one for‐profit hospital. A non‐profit hospital provides free care to patients, although they may have to wait; for‐profit hospitals charge a fee to provide care with minimal waiting. A comparison between the monopolistic and each of the duopolistic settings reveals that the introduction of competition can hamper a hospital's ability to attain economies of scale and can also increase waiting times. Moreover, the presence of a for‐profit sector may be desirable only when the hospital market is sufficiently competitive. A comparison across the duopolistic settings indicates that the choice between homogeneous and heterogeneous competition depends on the patients' willingness to wait before receiving care and the reimbursement level of the non‐profit sector. When the public funder is not financially constrained, the presence of a for‐profit sector may allow the funder to lower both the financial costs of providing coverage and the total costs to patients. Finally, our analysis suggests that the public funder should exercise caution when using policy tools that support the for‐profit sector—for example, patient subsidies—because such tools may increase patient costs in the long run; it might be preferable to raise the non‐profit sector's level of reimbursement.     

回收宣传模式对废旧产品回收影响及协调机制研究

消费者对废旧产品环境影响认知是影响废旧产品回收的关键因素之一，而回收宣传可以有效提升消费者该认知。在进行回收宣传时，会产生一定回收宣传费用，该费用如何分摊直接影响上下游回收宣传力度。为分析回收宣传费用对不同回收模式影响，本文基于不同的回收宣传费用承担方式构建4种回收模式。基于这4种回收模式，首先，对比分析不同回收宣传模式对单位废旧产品委托回收价格、单位回收价格、回收量和收益影响，其次，运用收益共享-成本分摊契约实现上下游同时进行回收宣传时协调机制，使上下游收益达到最优。研究主要得到：分散决策时，当回收商与处理商回收宣传成本系数之差小于某一阈值时，由回收商负责回收宣传较好，反之，由处理商负责回收宣传较好；上下游同时进行回收宣传时，单位回收宣传努力程度、废旧产品回收数量和收益大于只有一方进行回收宣传时，也即，当上下游同时回收宣传时，由于回收宣传作用，废旧产品回收比其只有一方进行回收宣传更有效；集中决策时，单位废旧产品回收价格、回收数量和总收益都大于上下游同时进行回收宣传时，通过收益共享-成本分摊契约可以使上下游同时进行回收宣传模式达到整体最优。     

闭环供应链中互联网回收平台合作推广研究

考虑单个制造商，单个网络零售商和单个第三方回收商组成的闭环供应链系统，网络零售商在销售产品、推广零售平台的同时,利用自身知名度向消费者宣传推广第三方回收商的互联网回收平台，制造商选择是否分摊零售商和回收商的推广成本，文中分三种情形研究供应链成员的最优决策，并进行了对比分析。研究表明：制造商分摊推广费用比不分摊推广费用的效果好；制造商分摊网络零售商的推广费用比分摊第三方回收商的推广费用的推广效果好。     

逆向供应链的政府奖惩机制与税收——补贴机制比较研究

为了比较政府奖惩机制和税收-补贴机制对于提高逆向供应链回收率的有效性,运用动态博弈论方法建立了逆向供应链的三个回收再制造决策模型,即无政府介入、奖惩机制下以及税收-补贴机制下逆向供应链的决策,并比较了三种情形下的决策结果。研究表明:三种情形下回收率都随着再制造成本优势的增加而提高,其中奖惩机制下的回收率最高;制造商和回收商的利润都随着再制造成本优势的提高而增加,其中奖惩机制下利润提高的幅度较大;制造商的回购价格随着奖惩力度和再制造成本优势的提高而提高,随着单位补贴和再制造成本优势的提高而下降。通过对两种机制决策结果的比较发现,奖惩机制对引导逆向供应链成员积极回收再制造废旧产品比税收-补贴机制更有效。最后通过算例分析进一步验证了上述结论的正确性。