需求-汇率风险聚集下的汇率风险对冲与批发价激励

以一个由上游制造商和下游零售商组成的二级供应链为建模背景,在汇率风险和需求风险聚集(pooling)在下游零售商的情况下,分别建立了有无批发价激励情形下的两个动态博弈模型,获得了相应的均衡。通过分析相应的均衡,结果表明,(1)在两种情形下,零售商的汇率风险对冲行为具有稳定供应链生产行为的作用,但批发价激励能够提高零售商的汇率风险对冲比例和供应链节点企业间的交易价格;(2)与无批发价激励的情形相比,有批发价激励时的制造商利润较高,从而制造商有使用批发价激励零售商对冲汇率风险的动机;(3)在风险聚集下,"通过较低的批发价来激励零售商对冲汇率风险"这一策略能够实现供应链盈利水平与风险承担之间的权衡:需求和汇率风险增加均会使得供应链节点企业和供应链整体的盈利水平降低,同时也将降低风险聚集处的节点企业和供应链整体的利润方差。     

价格柔性合同下的原材料采购策略及风险分析

为了降低原材料价格波动给采购-供应双方企业带来的风险,供应链企业通常采用签订价格合同的方式来共同分担原材料价格波动的风险。本文通过设计价格柔性合同,利用Stackelberg主从博弈模型研究了由一个供应商和一个制造商组成的采购系统的最优采购策略及原材料价格波动风险的分担机制。研究表明,通过实施价格柔性合同可以降低供应双方的风险,且通过设置合理的价格柔性系数可以提高双方的收益。     

非对称信息下供应链应急管理和信息价值研究

研究了非对称信息下供应链在突发事件下的应急管理和信息价值问题。当供应链生产计划已经完成后,突发事件发生并导致零售商所面临的市场需求规模以及供应商的生产成本同时发生突变,而且这些突变信息对于供应链成员而言是非对称的。分析了非对称信息对应急管理的影响以及相应的管理对策,发现非对称信息下的最优生产量不超过对称信息下的最优生产量,导致供应链系统收益减少并产生了信息价值,分析了非对称信息下供应链系统的信息价值规律以及影响因素。最后给出数值算例说明了信息在供应链中的重要价值,同时也说明了突发事件情况下实施应急管理的必要性和重要性。     

Enhancing corporate social responsibility: Contract design under information asymmetry

We consider a two-stage supply chain in which a contract manufacturer (CM) sells products through a brand name retailer. The contract manufacturer can invest in corporate social responsibility (CSR) activities to improve customer perception about the firm and increase demand, while the retailer can influence the demand by exerting marketing efforts. We design optimal contracts for such a supply chain, which faces information asymmetry. The wholesale price contract was developed as the base model to derive insight into the value of information sharing. We examine the impact of CSR cost on CSR commitment and profits. We find that CM׳s CSR cost impacts the CM׳s and the retailer׳s profits differently. Under certain conditions, the CM׳s profit will increase with cost, while that of the retailer is uncertain. We also propose two-part tariff contracts for both the symmetric and asymmetric cases with the aim of maximizing the retailer׳s profit and improving CM׳s commitment to CSR. Finally, numerical experiments are conducted to illustrate and validate the proposed models and provide managerial insights.     

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。     

Pricing Policy in a Supply Chain: Negotiation or Posted Pricing

This article examines the choice of pricing policy (posted pricing or negotiation) toward end customers in a supply chain. Many retailers actively decide whether or not to encourage negotiation on the shop floor. Of course, the retailer's pricing policy influences not only the retailer's profit, but also the profits of the manufacturers who sell through the retailer. However, little is known about the forces that shape the pricing policy when two self‐interested parties interact in a supply chain. We consider two alternative models depending on who has the power to decide the pricing policy: the manufacturer or the retailer. We find that an increase in the wholesale price weakens the retailer's ability to price discriminate through negotiation. Therefore, the retailer prefers negotiation at lower wholesale prices and posted pricing at higher wholesale prices. We also find that whenever the retailer prefers negotiation, the manufacturer does too. Therefore, the retailer's discretion over the pricing policy causes friction only when the retailer wants to use posted pricing, while the manufacturer wishes the retailer to use negotiation. We show that such friction arises only when product availability or the cost of negotiation is moderate. In this case, we show that the manufacturer may offer a substantial discount to persuade the retailer to negotiate. Surprisingly, in this region of friction, a decrease in the supply chain's capacity or an increase in negotiation costs (both of which are typically considered as worsening the retailer's business environment) translates into higher profit for the retailer.     

公平感对供应链成员定价决策影响的研究

本文研究公平感对由一个供应商和一个零售商组成的二级供应链中的定价决策的影响,其中供应商决定批发价格,零售商在接受供应商批发价格合同之后决定零售价格,市场需求受到零售价格的线性影响.采用管理实验方法得出,首先,供应商的批发价格和零售商的零售价格均分别低于完全理性假设下的均衡解;供应商是利他性的,即,乐于看到零售商收益的增加,并且,供应商认为零售商是完全理性的,即零售商的决策目标是最大化自身收益;然而,零售商却是刻毒性的,即乐于看到供应商收益的减少.其次,批发价格的变异度大于零售价格的,即供应商决策的难度大于零售商的.给管理者的启示是:供应商应考虑零售商的刻毒性的特征,降低批发价格,以提高零售商接受供应商所提批发价格的概率;此外,还应该为供应商提供辅助决策手段,以降低批发价格的变异度,提高决策的准确性     

Retailer's Response to Alternate Manufacturer's Incentives Under a Single‐Period,Price‐Dependent,Stochastic‐Demand Framework*

This article considers the joint development of the optimal pricing and ordering policies of a profit‐maximizing retailer, faced with (i) a manufacturer trade incentive in the form of a price discount for itself or a rebate directly to the end customer; (ii) a stochastic consumer demand dependent upon the magnitude of the selling price and of the trade incentive, that is contrasted with a riskless demand, which is the expected value of the stochastic demand; and (iii) a single‐period newsvendor‐type framework. Additional analysis includes the development of equal profit policies in either form of trade incentive, an assessment of the conditions under which a one‐dollar discount is more profitable than a one‐dollar rebate, and an evaluation of the impact upon the retailer‐expected profits of changes in either incentive or in the degree of demand uncertainty. A numerical example highlights the main features of the model. The analytical and numerical results clearly show that, as compared to the results for the riskless demand, dealing with uncertainty through a stochastic demand leads to (i) (lower) higher retail prices if additive (multiplicative) error, (ii) lower (higher) pass throughs if additive (multiplicative) error, (iii) higher claw backs in both error structures wherever applicable, and (iv) higher rebates to achieve equivalent profits in both error structures.     

物流联合外包下库存管理模式对供应链运作的影响

针对由供应商、第三方物流服务商和零售商组成的供应链,考虑供需双方将物流服务联合外包给第三方物流服务商、共同承担运费的情形,探究供应商管理库存和寄售库存两类库存管理模式的引入对供应链运作及合同设计的影响。分别在传统的零售商管理库存、仅引入寄售库存的零售商管理寄售库存以及同时引入供应商管理库存和寄售库存的供应商管理寄售库存三种模式下,构建了第三方物流服务商主导、供应商和零售商跟随的序贯非合作博弈模型,证明了所有模式下均衡的订购量/寄售量均存在且唯一,并探讨了均衡结果随零售商运费分摊比例、转移支付价格两个关键参数的变化。横向对比三种模式下的均衡结果和集中决策下的最优结果,发现：零售商管理库存模式下的均衡订购量总是低于零售商管理寄售库存模式以及集中决策下的结果,而其他库存管理模式下的订购量并非一定低于集中决策下的结果;不同库存管理模式下,均衡状态下的订购量/寄售量及供应链总的期望收益大小关系取决于供应商和零售商的类边际(毛利)贡献率,从而表明,供应链环境下,上下游成员企业的收益结构、盈利水平等对于库存决策及库存模式的选取有重要影响。此外,在绝大多数情形下,不同库存管理模式下的均衡订购量与集中决...     

全渠道零售商退货方式和定价研究

本文以全渠道零售商不同渠道的定价为背景,以企业利润最大化为目标,以顾客退货给零售商带来的损失为出发点,从三种不同的退货方式分析退货损失对零售商不同渠道最优定价和利润的影响。首先分析传统的原渠道退货(即：从购买产品的渠道退货),然后分析所有顾客都通过线上渠道退货,进而分析所有顾客都通过线下渠道退货。研究表明：三种退货方式下,当零售商与顾客的线上单位产品净退货损失之和小于线下单位产品净退货损失之和时,全渠道零售商选择全部退货到线上渠道可获得最大利润;当零售商与顾客的线上单位产品净退货损失之和大于线下单位产品净退货损失之和时,全渠道零售商应选择全部退货到线下的退货方式以获得最大利润;传统的退货方式不会让零售商获得最大利润。本文研究对于全渠道零售虑顾客退货损失的基础上,设置最合理的退货方式和不同渠道之间的最优定价有一定的指导意义和实际应用价值。     

基于信息不对称的突发需求风险管理

供应链中信息不对称和需求突变现象普遍存在。信息缺乏方希望既获得真实的信息又尽可能地减小需求突变对自己的影响。本文研究由于某种原因市场需求发生突变,变化量有高低两种可能且是零售商的私有信息的情形,针对由一个生产商和一个零售商组成的供应链,我们设计了由批发价、订货量和经济补贴三个参数构成的两套批发合同供零售商选择。研究表明在大多数情况下该合同可以满足生产商"既辨别出真实的需求变化又最大化利润"的目的。     

考虑零售商失望规避与欣喜寻求的定价与订货联合决策

现实中,零售商在定价与订货联合决策中往往会关注实际收益与预期收益的差异,并表现出失望规避与欣喜寻求行为,而针对考虑零售商失望规避与欣喜寻求行为的定价与订货联合决策问题的研究成果还不多见。在本文中,首先依据失望理论刻画了基于零售商预期收益的失望-欣喜效用函数,并在此基础上构建了考虑零售商失望-欣喜效用的定价与订货联合决策效用函数;然后,通过分析确定了使期望效用最大化的最优零售价格与最优订货量;进一步地,通过数值实验分析了零售商不同的预期收益、失望规避程度与欣喜寻求程度对其最优零售价格与最优订货量的影响。研究结果表明,零售商不同的预期收益以及失望规避程度与欣喜寻求程度均能够影响定价与订货联合决策结果,且针对具有不同预期收益的零售商,其失望规避程度与欣喜寻求程度对其最优决策结果的影响不同。     

部分信息下生鲜农产品采购外包问题研究

针对生鲜农产品的固有属性导致的采购风险,以及企业将一些业务如物流、采购等外包给第三方物流企业(3PL, Third Party Logistics),从而专注于自身核心业务发展的现实,建立了零售商和3PL的博弈模型,对比分析了部分需求信息下3PL采购和零售商采购对零售商和3PL的最优决策、利润,以及供应链系统利润的影响。研究表明,当正向需求风险较大时,3PL对生鲜农产品实际需求的判断较准确;当需求风险较小时,零售商对生鲜农产品实际需求的判断较准确。研究还发现,在绝大部分情况下,3PL采购对供应链系统是不利的。只有当正向需求风险很大,或生鲜农产品损耗率非常大,或损失分担比例很高时,3PL采购才能够增加供应链系统的利润。然而,在3PL采购提高供应链系统利润的条件下,3PL的利润低于同等条件下零售商采购时的利润。建议此时零售商通过采取返还给3PL一定利润的方式来促使3PL同意参与采购管理,以增加零售商、3PL和供应链系统的利润,提高供应链的竞争力。     

供应商保鲜努力的生鲜农产品双渠道供应链协调决策研究

在互联网迅猛发展的时代,生鲜农产品双渠道营销模式是供应商的最佳选择,如何发挥双渠道优势,实现渠道共赢是目前研究的热点。以供应商主导的双渠道供应链为研究对象,考虑新鲜度衰减且扰动需求和供应商保鲜努力,对比分析集中和分散决策模型,论证构建协调模型的必要性。从渠道合作和利润最大化的角度出发,设计两部定价契约、批发价协调契约和由成本分担与补偿策略构成的混合协调契约,三种契约均能在一定范围内有效实现供应链协调,提高各成员的利润。最后,对比分析所设计协调契约以认识其本质,并通过数值分析验证其有效性。     

Distributional and Peer‐Induced Fairness in Supply Chain Contract Design

Members of a supply chain often make profit comparisons. A retailer exhibits peer‐induced fairness concerns when his own profit is behind that of a peer retailer interacting with the same supplier. In addition, a retailer exhibits distributional fairness when his supplier's share of total profit is larger than his own. While existing research focuses exclusively on distributional fairness concerns, this study investigates how both types of fairness might interact and influence economic outcomes in a supply chain. We consider a one‐supplier and two‐retailer supply chain setting, and we show that (i) in the presence of distributional fairness alone, the wholesale price offer is lower than the standard wholesale price offer; (ii) in the presence of both types of fairness, the second wholesale price is higher than the first wholesale price; and (iii) in the presence of both types of fairness, the second retailer makes a lower profit and has a lower share of the total supply chain profit than the first retailer. We run controlled experiments with subjects motivated by substantial monetary incentives and show that subject behaviors are consistent with the model predictions. Structural estimation on the data suggests that peer‐induced fairness is more salient than distributional fairness.     

Channel Coordination for a Supply Chain with a Risk‐Neutral Manufacturer and a Loss‐Averse Retailer*

This articles considers a decentralized supply chain in which a single manufacturer is selling a perishable product to a single retailer facing uncertain demand. It differs from traditional supply chain contract models in two ways. First, while traditional supply chain models are based on risk neutrality, this article takes the viewpoint of behavioral principal–agency theory and assumes the manufacturer is risk neutral and the retailer is loss averse. Second, while gain/loss (GL) sharing is common in practice, there is a lack of analysis of GL‐sharing contracts in the supply chain contract literature. This article investigates the role of a GL‐sharing provision for mitigating the loss‐aversion effect, which drives down the retailer order quantity and total supply chain profit. We analyze contracts that include GL‐sharing‐and‐buyback (GLB) credit provisions as well as the special cases of GL contracts and buyback contracts. Our analytical and numerical results lend insight into how a manufacturer can design a contract to improve total supply chain, manufacturer, and retailer performance. In particular, we show that there exists a special class of distribution‐free GLB contracts that can coordinate the supply chain and arbitrarily allocate the expected supply chain profit between the manufacturer and retailer; in contrast with other contracts, the parameter values for contracts in this class do not depend on the probability distribution of market demand. This feature is meaningful in practice because (i) the probability distribution of demand faced by a retailer is typically unknown by the manufacturer and (ii) a manufacturer can offer the same contract to multiple noncompeting retailers that differ by demand distribution and still coordinate the supply chains.     

Design of Extended Warranties in Supply Chains under Additive Demand

We study the design of extended warranties in a supply chain consisting of a manufacturer and an independent retailer. The manufacturer produces a single product and sells it exclusively through the retailer. The extended warranty can be offered either by the manufacturer or by the retailer. The party offering the extended warranty decides on the terms of the policy in its best interest and incurs the repair costs of product failures. We use game theoretic models to answer the following questions. Which scenario leads to a higher supply‐chain profit, the retailer offering the extended warranty or the manufacturer? How do the optimum price and extended warranty length vary under different scenarios? We find that, depending on the parameters, either party may provide better extended warranty policies and generate more system profit. We also compare these two decentralized models with a centralized system where a single party manufactures the product, sells it to the consumer, and offers the extended warranty. We also consider an extension of our basic model where either the manufacturer or the retailer resells the extended warranty policies of a third party (e.g., an independent insurance company), instead of offering its own policy.     

Managing Slow‐Moving Perishables in the Grocery Industry

We address the value of information and value of centralized control in the context of a two‐echelon, serial supply chain with one retailer and one supplier that provide a single perishable product to consumers. Our analysis is relevant for managing slow‐moving perishable products with fixed lot sizes and expiration dates of a week or less. We evaluate two supply chain structures. In the first structure, referred to as decentralized information sharing, the retailer shares its demand, inventory, and ordering policy with the supplier, yet both facilities make their own profit‐maximizing replenishment decisions. In the second structure, centralized control, incentives are aligned and the replenishment decisions are coordinated. The latter supply chain structure corresponds to the industry practices of company‐owned stores or vendor‐managed inventory. We measure the value of information and value of centralized control as the marginal improvement in expected profits that a supply chain achieves relative to the case when no information is shared and decision making is decentralized. Key assumptions of our model include stochastic demand, lost sales, and fixed order quantities. We establish the importance of information sharing and centralized control in the supply chain and identify conditions under which benefits are realized. As opposed to previous work on the value of information, the major benefit in our setting is driven by the supplier's ability to provide the retailer with fresher product. By isolating the benefit by firm, we show that sharing information is not always Pareto‐improving for both supply chain partners in the decentralized setting.     

Coordination of Supply Chains with Risk‐Averse Agents

The extant supply chain management literature has not addressed the issue of coordination in supply chains involving risk‐averse agents. We take up this issue and begin with defining a coordinating contract as one that results in a Pareto‐optimal solution acceptable to each agent. Our definition generalizes the standard one in the risk‐neutral case. We then develop coordinating contracts in three specific cases: (i) the supplier is risk neutral and the retailer maximizes his expected profit subject to a downside risk constraint; (ii) the supplier and the retailer each maximizes his own mean‐variance trade‐off; and (iii) the supplier and the retailer each maximizes his own expected utility. Moreover, in case (iii), we show that our contract yields the Nash Bargaining solution. In each case, we show how we can find the set of Pareto‐optimal solutions, and then design a contract to achieve the solutions. We also exhibit a case in which we obtain Pareto‐optimal sharing rules explicitly, and outline a procedure to obtain Pareto‐optimal solutions.     

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。