Supplier Encroachment and Investment Spillovers

It is conventional wisdom that a manufacturer's encroachment into retail space will likely hurt an existing retailer. In contrast to this conventional belief, current research indicates that a retailer may welcome a manufacturer's encroachment despite the new competition in the final market. The encroachment may help the manufacturer have some “skin in the game” at the retail level, which will cause the manufacturer to make a selfish cost‐reducing investment that spills over to the retailer as a lower wholesale price. Such a spillover effect enhances the retailer's profit as long as the encroachment does not result in extreme retail competition by a certain degree of product differentiation, and ultimately generates Pareto gains in the supply chain. The spillover effect is so robust that the retailer's benefit from the encroachment remains even after considering potential mitigating factors such as selling costs, a nonlinear form of cost reduction, decentralized encroachment, additional retail competition, price competition, and a negotiation between the manufacturer and the retailer.     

全渠道环境下制造商品牌和零售商自有品牌优惠券促销

针对制造商通过零售商线下渠道为消费者提供线上下单线下自提(BOPS)的全渠道供应链,探讨制造商品牌垄断和零售商引入自有品牌的优惠券促销策略,分析制造商和零售商如何通过价格和优惠券面值的设计提升品牌竞争力和收益水平。研究发现：制造商品牌垄断下,批发价格或单位补偿越高,定价和优惠券面值均越大,但过大的批发价格致使制造商利润降低。零售商自有品牌的引入并不必然降低制造商品牌价格,当制造商批发价格较低时,制造商仍可在BOPS渠道定高价并投放大面值优惠券。此外,零售商引入自有品牌将降低制造商利润,零售商利润则增加,制造商响应策略为降低批发价格。     

信息共享对供应链合作广告影响的博弈分析

本文研究需求不确定环境下合作广告供应链中的信息共享对供应链上下游企业决策及绩效的影响。在此供应链中,上游制造商决定产品批发价格及地方性广告费用分担比例,下游零售商决定地方性广告费用的投入及产品售价。运用斯坦伯格博弈模型研究了不确定性对上下游定价和广告投入决策的影响,分析比较了有信息共享和无信息共享两种情况下供应链各成员及供应链利润。结果表明,对零售商而言,其广告水平,产品售价,及期望利润都随着广告效应的增大而增加;对制造商而言,当广告费用分担率较大时,较强的广告效应会导致零售商对广告的过度投入,从而损害制造商的利润。给定制造商广告分担率,信息共享可以提高制造商期望利润,却减少了零售商期望利润,并可能减少供应链的总体利润。给定批发价格的情况下,信息共享会提高制造商及供应链期望利润,而对零售商来讲无差别。     

成本学习效应对供应链渠道决策的影响

针对制造商、零售商组成的供应链结构,构建两种渠道模式（传统渠道和双渠道）下存在成本学习效应的两周期主从博弈模型。通过逆向求解,得到供应链成员的均衡决策。研究学习速率在不同渠道中的影响以及决策差异与共性。结果表明学习效应增大有益于制造商、消费者以及整个供应链。对比传统渠道,双渠道中产量（价格）随时间上升（下降）且零售商利润随增大的学习速率减小（传统渠道则与之相反）。双渠道中批发价格和市场价格更低（产量更大）;在一定条件下,供应链成员能够达到双赢（考虑学习效应影响的双渠道仍然能够减弱双重边际效应）。     

Cooperative Advertising and Pricing in a Dynamic Stochastic Supply Chain: Feedback Stackelberg Strategies

Cooperative (co‐op) advertising is an important instrument for aligning manufacturer and retailer decisions in supply chains. In this, the manufacturer announces a co‐op advertising policy, i.e., a participation rate that specifies the percentage of the retailer's advertising expenditure that it will provide. In addition, it also announces the wholesale price. In response, the retailer chooses its optimal advertising and pricing policies. We model this supply chain problem as a stochastic Stackelberg differential game whose dynamics follows Sethi's stochastic sales‐advertising model. We obtain the condition when offering co‐op advertising is optimal for the manufacturer. We provide in feedback form the optimal advertising and pricing policies for the manufacturer and the retailer. We contrast the results with the advertising and price decisions of the vertically integrated channel, and suggest a method for coordinating the channel.     

不对称信息下考虑产能约束的供应链合同设计

本文针对由产能约束品牌制造商和零售商组成的供应链系统,考虑市场上消费者对产品的异质性偏好,以及品牌制造商和零售商之间存在信息不对称,研究品牌制造商最优合同设计与零售商定价策略,考察产能约束与不对称信息对产品定价和供应双方合作的影响。研究发现：受到产能约束的品牌制造商有三种合同策略,即低价合同、固定价格合同以及高价合同等三种合同,在低价合同下品牌制造商可以充分利用其产能约束,而在后两种合同下产品有可能滞销;不对称信息会导致"批发价格+一次性转移支付"合同不能完美协调供应链。当品牌制造商和零售商进行信息共享谈判时,若二者在高价合同下进行合作,则品牌制造商与零售商在一定条件下可以达成信息共享谈判,实现"双赢"。     

混合渠道下2-2 可替代品供应链中交叉选择及均衡分析

在不同批发价格策略下探讨产品间可替代程度对供应链交叉选择的影响。选择由两个制造商和两个零售商构成的供应链为研究对象,分别探讨了制造商向零售商提供统一批发价格和实施批发价格歧视时混合渠道中的交叉选择及均衡结果。研究结果表明,当制造商向零售商提供统一批发价格,产品间可替代性低时,交叉选择将会发生。产品间可替代性高时,制造商倾向于采用单一的销售渠道,交叉选择将不会发生;当实施批发价格歧视时,产品间的替代性低时,双向交叉选择将成为均衡的结果;采用分散销售渠道的制造商不会仅选择集成销售渠道中的零售商。最后,用实例分析验证了研究结论。     

考虑资金收益情况下的供应链回购契约

在制造商的资金收益率大于零售商资金收益率的情况下,以报童模型为基础,研究了资金收益对回购契约的影响.系统预期利润变为与批发价相关,利用拉格朗日方程求解了满足零售商参与约束、同时使系统和制造商预期利润取得最大值的契约参数.与不考虑资金收益情况下的供应链协调不同的是:订货批量大于相应批发价下不考虑零售商参与约束的最优订货批量;若零售商的保留利润一定,则回购价增大;回购价可以大于批发价,批发价可以小于制造商的边际生产成本.     

Equilibrium Financing in a Distribution Channel with Capital Constraint

There exist capital constraints in many distribution channels. We examine a channel consisting of one manufacturer and one retailer, where the retailer is capital constrained. The retailer may fund its business by borrowing credit either from a competitive bank market or from the manufacturer, provided the latter is willing to lend. When only one credit type (either bank or trade credit) is viable, we show that trade credit financing generally charges a higher wholesale price and thus becomes less attractive than bank credit financing for the retailer. When both bank and trade credits are viable, the unique equilibrium is trade credit financing if production cost is relatively low but is bank credit financing otherwise. We also study the case where both the retailer and the manufacturer are capital constrained and demonstrate that, to improve the overall supply chain efficiency, the bank should finance the manufacturer if production cost is low but finance the retailer otherwise. Our analysis further suggests that the equilibrium region of trade credit financing shrinks as demand variability or the retailer's internal capital level increases.     

Value of and Interaction between Production Postponement and Information Sharing Strategies for Supply Chain Firms

We analyze the value of and interaction between production postponement and information sharing, which are two distinct strategies to reduce manufacturers’ uncertainty about demand. In both single‐level and two‐level supply chains, from the manufacturer's perspective, while information sharing is always valuable, production postponement can sometimes be detrimental. Furthermore, the value of production postponement is not merely driven by savings in inventory holding cost as postponement enables the manufacturer to avoid both excess and shortfall in production. We find that production postponement and information sharing strategies may substitute, complement, or conflict with each other, depending on the extent of the increase in the unit production cost when production is postponed. In a two‐level supply chain, from the retailer's perspective, information sharing and production postponement can be beneficial or detrimental. When information sharing is beneficial to the retailer, the retailer always shares her demand information with the manufacturer voluntarily. In addition, this voluntary information sharing is truthful because inflated or deflated demand information hurts the retailer through a higher wholesale price or a stock‐out. However, the retailer never shares her demand information voluntarily if the manufacturer has already adopted production postponement because production postponement and information sharing strategies always conflict with each other. Even when the retailer does not benefit from information sharing, we show that the manufacturer can always design an incentive mechanism to induce the retailer to share the demand information, irrespective of whether the manufacturer has already implemented production postponement or not. The above findings underscore the need for a careful assessment of demand uncertainty‐reduction strategies before the supply chain players embark upon them.     

碳限额与碳交易机制下考虑公平关切的供应链定价与协调研究

供应链企业的公平关切是发展与维持良好供应链上下游合作关系的重要因素。面对消费者的低碳偏好与碳排放规制约束,供应链企业在确定最优定价与减排水平等运作决策时,常常表现较强的公平关切倾向。探究环保规制下公平关切如何影响供应链的运作决策,可以为供应链合作提供对策。本文在碳限额与碳交易机制下,研究了由公平关切制造商和公平关切零售商组成的低碳供应链的最优定价和碳减排率等决策,分析了公平关切对最优定价和碳减排水平及利润的影响,并讨论了收益共享-成本共担契约模型对供应链的协调性,最后通过数值仿真验证了主要结论。结果表明：(1)制造商和零售商都公平关切时,收益共享-成本共担契约的参数若满足一定条件,供应链可以实现协调。(2)批发价与制造商公平关切系数正相关,零售价与制造商和零售商公平关切系数都正相关;若制造商考虑零售商公平关切则批发价的变化取决于碳减排成本系数的大小,碳减排率与制造商和零售商的公平关切系数是负相关;若制造商忽视零售商的公平关切,则批发价仅受制造商自身公平关切的影响, 碳减排率与制造商公平关切负相关,与零售商公平关切无关。(3)制造商公平关切对双方利润具有负向影响,零售商公平关切对制造商利润也有负向影响,而零售商利润随自身公平关切的变化情况取决于制造商是否考虑其公平关切,若考虑则两者正相关,否则两者负相关。     

考虑零售商公平关切与广告努力水平的碳减排策略研究

随着环境质量的下降，企业和消费者的环保意识不断提高，越来越多的企业开始增加产品的碳减排投入并且通过低碳产品的广告宣传来吸引环保型消费者购买。假设碳减排制造商生产一类低碳产品/环保产品，本文研究由一个碳减排制造商、一个进行广告宣传的零售商和具有环保意识的消费者构成的一个二级供应链，通过构建零售商公平中性或公平关切时是否进行碳减排成本分担建立四个模型，分析消费者环保意识以及零售商分担的低碳成本比例和公平关切系数对供应链企业的影响。研究发现：①当消费者环保意识增加时，在构建的四个模型中，低碳产品的碳减排水平、广告努力水平、批发价格和零售价格均增加；②随着公平关切系数的增加，不论零售商是否承担碳减排成本，产品碳减排水平、广告努力水平、批发价格和零售价格逐渐降低；③在零售商承担一部分减排成本且不关注公平时，随着零售商承担的减排成本比例的增加，产品碳减排水平提高；当零售商关注公平且关注度较低时，随着零售商分担的低碳成本比例增加，产品碳减排水平减少；当零售商关注公平且关注度较高时，随着零售商分担的低碳成本比例增加，产品碳减排水平升高；④消费者环保意识的增加与零售商主动分担碳减排成本都会有利于环境质量的提高，然而零售商考虑公平关切不利于提高环境质量；如果零售商关注公平，分担碳减排成本是否有利于环境质量提高取决于零售商关注公平的程度。     

Implications for the Role of Retailers in Quality Assurance

We investigate a manufacturer–retailer channel to explore the role of a retailer in assuring the quality of a manufacturer's product as a quality gatekeeper. Such a gatekeeping activity can entail a reduction in the defective rate for consumers, if the retailer charges the manufacturer a penalty for each identified defect that is no smaller than the market penalty for an unidentified defect. As a result of the retailer's gatekeeping, the change in the negotiated wholesale price only depends on the manufacturer's individual benefit, whereas the change in the retailer's optimal retail price is associated with the channel‐wide benefit. When the impact of quality relative to retail price on demand is higher, the retailer benefits more from her gatekeeping activity, thus having a greater incentive to take on the quality gatekeeping responsibility. Moreover, the retailer's gatekeeping generates a larger increase in the demand as well as each firm's profit, when the retailer has a stronger relative bargaining power.     

基于上游成员的机会成本和消费者偏好的供应链产品策略

基于对上游成员的机会成本和消费者在质量偏好上的异质性的考虑,本文研究中心化和由一零售商与一制造商（供应商）组成的分散化供应链在质量和数量上的最优产品策略。通过构建问题的理论模型及分析,分别获得最优解和博弈均衡解。进而利用灵敏度分析和算例讨论了消费者对质量偏好的异质性和上游成员的机会成本对供应链的产品策略、供应链的利润和消费者剩余的影响。研究发现：当边际质量成本较低时,供应链产品策略应主要考虑满足大众需求;而当边际质量成本和消费者对质量偏好的异质性程度都较高时,供应链只需考虑部分高质量敏感的消费者;当消费者对质量的平均偏好水平较低,边际质量成本较高和顾客需求趋于同质时,产品应考虑退出市场;此外,成员的权利均衡有助于完善供应链利润和社会福利,而零售商的强势帮助消费者培育和提高产品质量。最后,占据先动优势的一方在利润分配时基本上占上风。     

制造商成本削减策略对风险规避型零售商信息共享策略的影响

考虑一个风险中性制造商和一个风险规避零售商构成的供应链，需求随机且受销售价格的影响。在销售季节之前，零售商对需求进行预测，获取需求信号；制造商对生产进行投资降低生产成本。基于零售商的不同信息共享策略及制造商的投资策略，考虑四种不同策略模型，分别得到最优零售价、批发价（及投资水平），并分析需求预测精确度对供应链成员决策和效用的影响。通过四种模型效用的对比分析，探讨制造商的投资策略以及零售商的风险规避态度对零售商信息共享策略的影响。研究发现，零售商共享需求信息对于制造商总是有益的，且制造商总是愿意采取成本削减策略；只有当制造商采取成本削减策略，且其投资成本系数较低时，共享需求信息对零售商才有益。最后，得到了制造商和零售商的均衡策略。     

延迟支付下短生命周期产品批发价契约研究

在需求随机且允许延迟支付的情况下,如果零售商的销售款不足以清偿应支付给制造商的货款,制造商将承担一定的回款风险。对此,以报童模型为基础,针对短生命周期产品建立了延迟支付下的批发价契约模型。分析表明,如果需求分布是IGFR,那么对于一定的批发价,零售商有确定的最优订货批量。制造商的预期利润是批发价的递增函数。制造商根据零售商至少应获得的预期利润来确定批发价。当满足一定条件时供应链能够实现协调,但这是一种系统利润分配缺乏柔性的协调。     

Price competition,cost and demand disruptions and coordination of a supply chain with one manufacturer and two competing retailers

This paper studies the coordination of a supply chain with one manufacturer and two competing retailers after the production cost of the manufacturer was disrupted. We consider two coordination mechanisms: an all-unit quantity discount and an incremental quantity discount. For each mechanism, we develop the conditions under which the supply chain is coordinated and discuss how the cost disruption may affect the coordination mechanisms. For the all-unit quantity discount scheme, we find that the manufacturer charges the lower-cost retailer for a lower unit wholesale price in order to induce him to order more products. If the costs of two retailers have a remarkable difference, then the all-unit quantity discount scheme cannot coordinate the supply chain with disruptions. While the cost disruption may affect the wholesale prices, order quantities as well as retail prices, it is optimal for the supply chain to keep the original coordination mechanism if the production cost change is sufficiently small. The model is also extended to the case with both cost and demand disruptions. The equilibrium strategies of the retailers are investigated when the manufacturer cannot timely react to the disruptions such that she has to keep the original mechanism. We illustrate the results by numerical examples.     

Technical Note—Demand Uncertainty Reduction in Decentralized Supply Chains

This note analyzes the effects associated with reducing demand uncertainty in a decentralized supply chain comprising one manufacturer, one retailer, and a wholesale price contract that governs the transactions between them. The demand uncertainty level is parameterized through a mean‐preserving spread, and the manufacturer's and the retailer's equilibrium decisions are solved accordingly. We consider the case of an exogenous retail price as well as the case of an endogenous retail price, and we find in both cases that the manufacturer's and the retailer's expected profits in equilibrium are not necessarily monotone decreasing in the uncertainty level. Thus, we find that, even if the cost of reducing demand uncertainty is zero, uncertainty reduction can hurt rather than benefit either or both members of the supply chain.     

When Does a Retailer's Advance Selling Capability Benefit Manufacturer,Retailer, or Both?

Advance selling (AS) from a retailer to consumers is commonly observed in practice. With an AS capability, a retailer has the option to sell in advance or not. Having the AS option seems to increase flexibility and thus profit for a retailer. However, we show that the AS option can hurt the retailer's profit as well as supply chain performance. We identify two thresholds for a product's marginal production cost. A retailer's AS option benefits both the manufacturer and retailer when the marginal production cost is high, that is, above both thresholds. It benefits the manufacturer but hurts the retailer when the marginal production cost is moderate, that is, between the two thresholds. The result is ambiguous when the marginal production cost is low, that is, below both thresholds. We find that consumer valuation uncertainty under AS is the key driving force for the surprising result that having the retailer's AS option can hurt the retailer. When compared to the scenario where the retailer does not have the AS option, we find that the manufacturer's optimal wholesale price weakly decreases under the retailer's AS option if the marginal production cost is high. The statement is reversed if the marginal production cost is moderate or low.     

Does a Store Brand Always Hurt the Manufacturer of a Competing National Brand?

It is generally believed that store brands hurt the manufacturers of competing national brands while benefiting retailers. In this study, we challenge this notion by studying the impacts of a store brand when it is introduced by a power retailer. We show that a store brand may benefit the manufacturer when the interaction between the manufacturer and retailer is modeled as a retailer‐led Stackelberg game. This phenomenon occurs because the store brand changes the nature of the strategic interaction between the manufacturer and retailer in our model. In particular, while the interaction is always vertical strategic substitutability without a store brand, it may become vertical strategic independence with one. With the store brand, the demand for the national brand becomes larger, and the wholesale price for the national brand may increase, both of which benefit the manufacturer. Finally, the store brand may lessen the double marginalization problem of the supply chain for the national brand in the retailer‐led Stackelberg game, but does so in an unconventional way: The reduction in the double marginalization effect may come from a lowered retail markup instead of a lowered wholesale price. Our results reconcile some discrepancies between theoretical predictions and empirical findings regarding the impacts of store brands on manufacturers.