Supply Chain Coordination in the Presence of Gray Markets and Strategic Consumers

The practice of diverting genuine products to unauthorized gray markets continues to challenge companies in various industries and creates intense competition for authorized channels. Recent industry surveys report that the abuse of channel incentives is a primary reason for the growth of gray market activities. Therefore, it is crucial that companies take the presence of gray markets into consideration when they design contracts to distribute products through authorized retailers. This issue has received little attention in the extensive literature on contracting and supply chain coordination. In this study, we analyze the impacts of gray markets on two classic contracts, wholesale price and quantity discount, in a supply chain with one manufacturer and one retailer when the retailer has the opportunity to sell to a domestic gray market. Our analysis provides interesting and counterintuitive results. First, a classic quantity‐discount contract that normally coordinates the supply chain can perform so poorly in the presence of a gray market that the supply chain would be better off using a wholesale price contract instead. Second, the presence of gray market can also degrade the performance of the wholesale price contract; therefore, a more sophisticated contract is needed for coordinating the supply chain. We show that contracts that solely depend on retailer's order quantity cannot coordinate the supply chain, and provide the conditions for coordinating the supply chain with price‐dependent quantity discount contracts. We also provide comparative statics and show that when there is a gray market, coordinating the supply chain enhances total consumer welfare.     

Distributing a Product Line in a Decentralized Supply Chain

Although there is a rich literature on single product distribution in decentralized supply chains, the incentive problems that arise in distributing a product line have largely not been investigated. In practice, most manufacturers distribute a line of products with different features and qualities and not just a single product. Consider a manufacturer who distributes a product line through competing downstream retailers. In this setting, we investigate how and why the retailers' price and inventory decisions deviate from the centrally optimal decisions. Due to substitution between different product variants, as well as between different retailers, the incentive problems associated with distributing a product line are more complicated than that of distributing a single product. We characterize retailers' incentive distortions under a residual‐claimancy contract, and construct contracts that achieve channel coordination. We show that retail price floors or inventory buybacks, appropriately tailored to each product variant, are among the contracts that can achieve coordination. Using numerical simulations, we demonstrate how the optimal contract terms (such as wholesale prices and buyback prices) for each variant are influenced by the parameters of an underlying consumer choice model.     

Coordination in a Single‐Supplier,Multi‐Retailer Distribution System: Supplier‐Facilitated Transshipments

We consider supplier‐facilitated transshipments for achieving supply chain coordination in a single supplier, multi‐retailer distribution system with non‐cooperative retailers. The previous transshipment literature has focused on coordination through retailer‐negotiated transshipments and thus does not consider the supplier's decision‐making. In contrast, in this study, we assume the supplier is an active participant in the system and we seek to understand how the supplier can facilitate the implementation of coordinating transshipments. We study a two‐period model with wholesale orders at the start of the first period and preventive transshipments performed at the start of the second period. Inspired by a supplier‐facilitated transshipment scheme observed in practice, we assume the supplier implements transshipments through a bi‐directional adjustment contract. Under this contract, each retailer can either buy additional inventory from, or sell back excess inventory to, the supplier. We show that coordination can be achieved through carefully designed contracts with state‐dependent adjustment prices and a wholesale price menu. We demonstrate that the supplier's role in facilitating coordinating transshipments is critical. In addition, we use our understanding of the coordinating contract form to derive some simpler and easier‐to‐implement heuristic contracts. We use a numerical study to demonstrate the value, to the supplier, of using the coordinating adjustment and wholesale prices, and to evaluate the heuristics’ performance.     

The Impact of Contracts and Competition on Upstream Innovation in a Supply Chain

We consider a supply chain with an upstream supplier who invests in innovation and a downstream manufacturer who sells to consumers. We study the impact of supply chain contracts with endogenous upstream innovation, focusing on three different contract scenarios: (i) a wholesale price contract, (ii) a quality‐dependent wholesale price contract, and (iii) a revenue‐sharing contract. We confirm that the revenue‐sharing contract can coordinate supply chain decisions including the innovation investment, whereas the other two contracts may result in underinvestment in innovation. However, the downstream manufacturer does not always prefer the revenue‐sharing contract; the manufacturer's profit can be higher with a quality‐dependent wholesale price contract than with a revenue‐sharing contract, specifically when the upstream supplier's innovation cost is low. We then extend our model to incorporate upstream competition between suppliers. By inviting upstream competition, with the wholesale price contract, the manufacturer can increase his profit substantially. Furthermore, under upstream competition, the revenue‐sharing contract coordinates the supply chain, and results in an optimal contract form for the manufacturer when suppliers are symmetric. We also analyze the case of complementary components suppliers, and show that most of our results are robust.     

具有风险规避销售商的供应链最优回购契约

在销售商风险规避下,运用CVaR方法研究了供应商在直营渠道（集中式供应链）和非直营渠道（分散式供应链）下回购契约的设计问题。刻画了集中式供应链下回购契约完成渠道协调的充要条件,求解了分散式供应链的最优回购契约。比较分析了集中式和分散式供应链下回购契约的差异,得到以下结论：相对于集中式供应链,供应商在分散式供应链中趋向于设定更高的批发价格,或更低的回购价格。讨论了销售商的风险规避度对契约设计和供应商收益的影响,研究表明：销售商越规避风险,供应商的收益越低。最后提供一个案例讨论了模型在现实中的应用。     

力量不对等供应链中不同定价权下的契约选择

寄存契约为供应商管理库存运营模式中的一种,零售商偏好寄存契约从而把库存风险转移给供应商,而供应商则偏好传统模式从而不需承担库存风险.从批发价格的定价权出发,探讨力量不对等供应链中成员偏好某种契约的务件.分析在力量不对等的供应链中,当批发价格为外生批发价格,即批发价格由外部市场决定时,供应链中成员在传统模式和寄存契约下的决策问题,并分析外生批发价格的大小如何影响供应链中成员的契约选择;当批发价格为内生批发价格,即批发价格由供应链中强势方(零售商或供应商)决定时,分别分析供应链中成员在传统模式和寄存契约下的决策问题,并横向分析不同力量对比度的供应链中,供应链成员如何选择契约和供应链的最终运行模式,从而为供应链成员的运营模式选择提供一定的科学指导.     

考虑向上销售和渠道主导结构的BOPS定价与服务合作

在"线上下单,线下取货"的BOPS模式下进行了供应链主体的定价与服务合作决策分析。研究发现：1）在零售商主导的结构下,单位补偿契约可以实现合理的利润分配,且向上销售产品的批发价格将不会影响BOPS产品价格、服务决策和最优利润;2）在制造商主导的结构下,批发价格契约可以有效实现服务合作,单位补偿值可影响定价与服务决策继而影响主体间利润分配,且当单位补偿值为0时,供应链总利润最大;3）制造商主导下的供应链效率高于零售商主导下的情形,呈现的双重边际化效应较不明显。研究结论对商家进行全渠道实践提供了参考。     

The Comparison of Two Vertical Outsourcing Structures under Push and Pull Contracts

In a three‐tier supply chain comprising an original equipment manufacturer (OEM), a contract manufacturer (CM), and a supplier, there exist two typical outsourcing structures: control and delegation. Under the control structure, the OEM contracts with the CM and the supplier respectively. Under the delegation structure, the OEM contracts with the CM only and the CM subcontracts with the supplier. We compare the two outsourcing structures under a push contract (whereby orders are placed before demand is realized) and a pull contract (whereby orders are placed after demand is realized). For all combinations of outsourcing structures and contracts, we derive the corresponding equilibrium wholesale prices, order quantities, and capacities. We find that the equilibrium production quantity is higher under control than under delegation for the push contract whereas the reverse holds for the pull contract. Both the OEM and the CM prefer control over delegation under the push contract. However, under the pull contract, the OEM prefers control over delegation whereas the CM and the supplier prefer delegation over control. We also show that for a given outsourcing structure, the OEM prefers the pull contract over the push contract. In extending our settings to a general two‐wholesale‐price (TWP) contract, we find that when wholesale prices are endogenized decision variables, the TWP contract under our setting degenerates to either a push or a pull contract.     

双向期权在供应链协调中的应用

本文分析了在由批发价格合同和双向期权合同组成的合同菜单下零售商的最优订货策略,并给出了能够协调供应链的合同菜单形式。本文所给出的合同菜单形式具有独立于随机需求的概率分布的性质,从而具有很好的适用性和鲁棒性。     

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"。     

直销渠道开通的情形下制造商与电商平台合约选择的研究

理论界认为代售合约具有明显的消除双重边际效应的作用,许多制造商和电商平台选择签订代售合约,但是也有制造商和电商平台选择了批发合约。本文以在线销售系统为背景,研究了直销渠道开通的情形下制造商和电商平台合约的选择。通过研究发现,制造商和电商平台并不是总偏好批发合约或代售合约,并且存在一个帕累托改进区域;虽然制造商在电商平台上有网络销售渠道,但是制造商会保留原有的直销渠道;对于电商平台来说,收益分配系数并不是越大越好;代售合约虽然能够消除双重边际效应,但在代售合约下,整个在线销售系统的效率并不总是最高的。另外,随着直销渠道的效率增加,制造商会先降低批发价格,然后再增加批发价格;与以往的研究结论不同,代售合约下电商平台的市场销售价格并不总是最小的。以上的结论其实都是批发合约下的直销渠道和代售合约下的电商平台在缓解双重边际效应方面的不同作用带来的。     

两生产商单零售商的货架展示量与定价决策模型及协调策略设计

研究两个生产商和单个零售商的供应链,生产商生产的产品为可替代产品,产品需求是货架展示量和零售价格的函数。首先分析了零售商以最大化自身利润为目标的分散式决策,然后分别研究了供应链系统利润最大化、以及生产商与零售商组成联盟后的渠道利润最大化下的集中式决策模型,进而提出了与零售价和展示量相关的批发价加补贴合同、以及与零售价和展示量相关的批发价加补贴加利润共享合同,两种合同能分别协调零售商的分散式决策达到与系统利润最大化和渠道利润最大化决策一致。最后的算例表明了上述决策模型的差异和协调合同的有效性。     

Competition and Coordination in a Two‐Channel Supply Chain

We study competition and coordination in a supply chain in which a single supplier both operates a direct channel and sells its product through multiple differentiated retailers. We study analytically the supply chain with symmetric retailers and find that the supplier prefers to have as many retailers as possible in the market, even if the retailers' equilibrium retail price is lower than that of the supplier, and even if the number of retailers and their cost or market advantage prevent sales through the direct channel. We find that the two‐channel supply chain may be subject to inefficiencies not present in the single‐channel supply chain. We show that several contracts known to coordinate a single‐channel supply chain do not coordinate the two‐channel supply chain; thus we propose a linear quantity discount contract and demonstrate its ability to perfectly coordinate the two‐channel supply chain with symmetric retailers. We provide some analytical results for the supply chain with asymmetric retailers and propose an efficient solution approach for finding the equilibrium. We find numerically that the supplier still benefits from having more retailers in the market and that linear quantity discount contracts can mitigate supply chain inefficiency, though they no longer achieve perfect coordination.     

Fresh-product supply chain management with logistics outsourcing

We consider a supply chain in which a producer supplies a fresh product, through a third-party logistics (3PL) provider, to a distant market where a distributor purchases and sells it to end customers. The product is perishable, both the quantity and quality of which may deteriorate during the process of transportation. The market demand is random, sensitive to the selling price as well as the freshness of the product. We derive the optimal decisions for the three supply chain members, including the 3PL provider's transportation fee, the producer's shipping quantity and wholesale price, and the distributor's purchasing quantity and retail price. We find that the presence of the 3PL provider in the supply chain has a significant impact on its performance. We propose an incentive scheme to coordinate the supply chain. The scheme consists of two contracts, including a wholesale-market clearance (WMC) contract between the producer and the distributor, and a wholesale-price-discount sharing (WDS) contract between the producer and the 3PL provider. We show that the proposed contracts can eliminate the two sources of “double marginalization” that exist in the three-tier supply chain, and induce the three parties to act in a coordinated way.     

零售商的资金约束对协调契约的影响分析

在零售商促销下,探讨了零售商的资金约束对使用收益共享契约和回购契约协调供应链的影响。分析了零售商拥有不同运营资金下供应链的契约协调问题,研究表明：在运营资金相对充裕下,收益共享契约不仅能协调供应链,且能实现渠道收益的任意分配,但回购契约不能实现渠道收益的任意分配,除非运营资金非常充裕;在运营资金不足下,收益共享契约仍有可能协调供应链,但回购契约不能协调供应链。讨论了资金的时间价值对两个契约协调供应链的影响,结果表明：在回购契约下,资金利率越大,具有资金约束零售商的供应链被协调的可能性越大,但资金利率对收益共享契约没有影响。最后提供了数值分析。研究中得到一些管理启示,可为资金约束供应链的协调管理提供理论借鉴。     

Supply Chain Contracting Under Competition: Bilateral Bargaining vs. Stackelberg

We analyze contracting behaviors in a two‐tier supply chain system consisting of competing manufacturers and competing retailers. We contrast the contracting outcome of a Stackelberg game, in which the manufacturers offer take‐it‐or‐leave‐it contracts to the retailers, with that of a bargaining game, in which the firms bilaterally negotiate contract terms via a process of alternating offers. The manufacturers in the Stackelberg game possess a Stackelberg‐leader advantage in that the retailers are not entitled to make counteroffers. Our analysis suggests that whether this advantage would benefit the manufacturers depends on the contractual form. With simple contracts such as wholesale‐price contracts, which generally do not allow one party to fully extract the trade surplus, the Stackelberg game replicates the boundary case of the bargaining game with the manufacturers possessing all the bargaining power. In contrast, with sophisticated contracts such as two‐part tariffs, which enable full surplus extraction, the two games lead to distinct outcomes. We further show that the game structure being Stackelberg or bargaining critically affects firms' preferences over contract types and thus their equilibrium contract choices. These observations suggest that the Stackelberg game may not be a sufficient device to predict contracting behaviors in reality where bargaining is commonly observed.     

碳税政策下随机双渠道库存与协调研究

构建碳税政策下由单个制造商和单个零售商组成的双渠道供应链模型,在考虑渠道之间缺货转换的基础上,研究批发价格合约和双向收入共享契约下渠道间双渠道库存竞争问题,并设计了由双向收入共享合约和转移支付机制组成的组合合约机制使制造商和零售商实现共赢,以此保证合约的有效执行。研究表明：批发价合约和双向收入共享合约下,制造商分别通过调控批发价格和收入分享比例来调控双渠道的库存水平,其中网络渠道最优库存水平随着零售渠道单位碳排放量增加而增加,零售商的库存水平随着其单位碳排放量增加而减少。进一步分析了渠道间单位产品碳排放差异对批发价格,以及传统零售渠道和网络渠道库存水平的影响如何受到缺货转换率和碳税税率的调节。     

The Agency Model for Digital Goods

While digital goods industries such as entertainment, software, and publishing are growing at a rapid pace, traditional supply chain contract models have failed to evolve with the new digital economy. To illustrate, the agency model utilized by the e‐book publishing industry has recently received much negative attention brought by the U.S. Department of Justice's lawsuit against Apple, Inc. The emerging agency model in the e‐book industry works as follows: the publisher sets the price of the digital goods and the retailers who serve as agents retain a percentage of the revenue associated with a consumer purchase. The regulators claim that the agency model is hurting this industry as well as the consumer's welfare because e‐book prices have increased after the introduction of the agency model. We investigate the strategic impact of the agency model by examining a digital goods supply chain with one supplier and two competing retailers. In comparison to the benchmark wholesale model, we find that the agency model can coordinate the competing retailers by dividing the coordinated profits into a prenegotiated revenue sharing proportion. Further, we also identify the Pareto improving region whereby both the supplier and the retailers prefer the agency model to the wholesale model. Our main qualitative insight regarding the agency model still holds even when we consider the presence of the printed books in the marketplace. Thus, contrary to current press presaging the negative impact of the agency model on the e‐books industry, we find the agency model to be superior to the traditional wholesale contracts for publishers, retailers and consumers in this digital goods industry.     

生产商规模不经济的双渠道供应链协调策略选择

供应链协调是提高供应链整体利润、改善供应链各方利益的根本手段.旨在探讨生产商具有生产规模不经济特性的双渠道供应链协调策略.给出了集中决策下双渠道供应链的市场价格与整体利润,以及分散决策下批发价契约与收益共享契约的设计方法.提出了协调度的概念,即契约使供应链协调的程度.证明了批发价契约的协调度小于1,不能实现供应链的协调;而收益共享契约的协调度等于1,但相对于批发价契约,收益共享契约不能同时改善零售商和生产商的利润,导致收益共享契约不可实施.为找到双渠道供应链可实施的协调策略,提出了带固定补偿的收益共享契约的设计方法和用纳什讨价还价协商模型确定固定补偿的方法.结果表明,该契约的协调度等于1,并且相对于批发价契约能同时改善零售商和生产商的利润.另外,研究还表明:生产不经济的弹性系数与销售价格成正比、与供应链的整体利润成反比,并且不同渠道间的竞争越激烈,双渠道供应链的销售价格和需求反而越高,双渠道供应链的总利润也越高,并且,带固定补偿的收益共享契约同样可以协调线性成本下的双渠道供应链.最后用算例验证了本文结论的正确性和有效性.     

Supply chain coordination with information design

We consider the coordination of a supplier–retailer supply chain where, in addition to classical contract considerations, a supplier decides the adoption of an information structure (IS) for the supply chain, with a higher-quality IS allowing the supply chain parties to obtain a more accurate demand forecast. Because a wholesale price contract cannot coordinate the supply chain due to misaligned incentives of supply chain parties, we explore what common coordinating contracts in the classical coordination literature can continue coordinating the supply chain with the IS adoption. Interestingly, our analysis appears to reveal the power of simplicity: some simple classical coordinating contracts (e.g., the buy-back and revenue-sharing contracts), though not designed with the IS consideration, still coordinate the supply chain, whereas other more complicated classical contracts (e.g., the quantity flexibility and sales rebate contracts) fail to do so. We derive a general condition for supply chain coordination and show that any contract with a newsvendor-like transfer payment can coordinate the supply chain.