碳排放政策不同和碳敏感度差异对于供应链的影响研究
|
摘要
为了研究历史法和标杆法两种碳排放政策对于供应链决策的影响,根据政策作用节点的差异性,以及市场需求的碳敏感度的差异性,分别建立了四种不同类型的低碳供应链模型。研究发现:当满足一定条件时,采用标杆法求解得到的订货量和减排量均大于采用历史法时的最优值。在这些条件中,主要的影响因素是:技术改进成本系数、需求的碳减排敏感系数、单位碳交易价格和市场随机因素。并且当政策的作用节点不同时,需要满足的条件亦不同。最后,通过数值模拟分析,进一步印证了文章中的结论。
In recent years,the carbon emission coupled with production systems has been gaining more attention from both industrial practitioners and academic scholars.To curb carbon emission,cap-and-trade scheme is often utilized by government as a cost effective mechanism to reduce carbon emission without sacrificing economic robustness.In order to calculate free carbon permits,two types of historical-based methods are often adopted,i.e.grand-fathering and benchmarking.The grand-fathering approach is used to allocate the free carbon allowance(cap)according to historical total emission volume on a yearly basis.In contrast,the benchmarking approach cap is calculated on the basis of industrial best-practice carbon emission per production unit.In this paper,a two-echelon supply chain consisting of a dominant supplier and a manufacturer where they run a Stackelburg game is investigated.Then the impact of the two approaches upon production decisions such as optimal order and production quantity,per unit volume of carbon emission abatement(PCEA)and wholesale price is analyzed.Taking carbon conscious factor of market demand into consideration,news vendor models in four scenarios in which the cap-and-trade policy affects the upstream or downstream players respectively are solved.The results show that the benchmarking approach,although is intuitively viewed as a more rigorous method in terms of environmental constraint,encourages the downstream player to improve order quantity,i.e.the optimal order quantity is bigger by the constraint of benchmarking method.Meanwhile,the PCEA is higher under benchmarking approach than it is under grand-fathering method,therefore the total volume of carbon emission abatement is higher under benchmarking scheme.In addition,it is suggested that the downstream player will increase order quantity under benchmarking scheme regardless of the supply chain's node being affected by the cap-and-trade policy.When the market demand is carbon conscious,i.e.linearly related to PCEA,the downstream player's order quantity will depend on PCEA even without the constraint of cap-and-trade.Finally,managerial insights are obtained,which include(1)the government use benchmarking approach to allocate cap is a better choice in terms of improving the total carbon emission abatement volume;(2)the benchmarking approach is not always effective under some circumstances where it is affected by carbon trade price,carbon technical coefficient and stochastic factors etc.
In recent years,the carbon emission coupled with production systems has been gaining more attention from both industrial practitioners and academic scholars.To curb carbon emission,cap-and-trade scheme is often utilized by government as a cost effective mechanism to reduce carbon emission without sacrificing economic robustness.In order to calculate free carbon permits,two types of historical-based methods are often adopted,i.e.grand-fathering and benchmarking.The grand-fathering approach is used to allocate the free carbon allowance(cap)according to historical total emission volume on a yearly basis.In contrast,the benchmarking approach cap is calculated on the basis of industrial best-practice carbon emission per production unit.In this paper,a two-echelon supply chain consisting of a dominant supplier and a manufacturer where they run a Stackelburg game is investigated.Then the impact of the two approaches upon production decisions such as optimal order and production quantity,per unit volume of carbon emission abatement(PCEA)and wholesale price is analyzed.Taking carbon conscious factor of market demand into consideration,news vendor models in four scenarios in which the cap-and-trade policy affects the upstream or downstream players respectively are solved.The results show that the benchmarking approach,although is intuitively viewed as a more rigorous method in terms of environmental constraint,encourages the downstream player to improve order quantity,i.e.the optimal order quantity is bigger by the constraint of benchmarking method.Meanwhile,the PCEA is higher under benchmarking approach than it is under grand-fathering method,therefore the total volume of carbon emission abatement is higher under benchmarking scheme.In addition,it is suggested that the downstream player will increase order quantity under benchmarking scheme regardless of the supply chain's node being affected by the cap-and-trade policy.When the market demand is carbon conscious,i.e.linearly related to PCEA,the downstream player's order quantity will depend on PCEA even without the constraint of cap-and-trade.Finally,managerial insights are obtained,which include(1)the government use benchmarking approach to allocate cap is a better choice in terms of improving the total carbon emission abatement volume;(2)the benchmarking approach is not always effective under some circumstances where it is affected by carbon trade price,carbon technical coefficient and stochastic factors etc.
引文
[1]http://www.cslpc.org/News/OtherDetails/1/344412
[2]孙振清,陈亚男,王国军.中国碳市场建设问题探源及对策研究[J].环境保护,2015,43(6):42-44.
[3]Mackenzie I A,Hanley N,Kornienko T.The optimal initial allocation of pollution permits:a relative performance approach[J].Environmental and Resource Economics,2008,39(3):265-282.
[4]Goulder L H,Hafstead M A C,Dworsky M.Impacts of alternative emissions allowance allocation methods under a federal cap-and-trade program[J].Journal of Environmental Economics and Management,2010,60(3):161-181.
[5]Hoen K M R,Tan T,Fransoo J C,et al.Effect of carbon emission regulations on transport mode selection under stochastic demand[J].Flexible Services and Manufacturing Journal,2014,26:170-195.
[6]Akoy A,Kucukoglu I,Ene S,et.al.Integrated emission and fuel consumption calculation model for green supply chain management[J].Procedia-Social and behavioral sciences,2014,109:1106-1109.
[7]Jin Mingzhou,Grand-Marulanda N A,Down I.The impact of carbon policies on supply chain design and logistics of a major retailer[J].Journal of Cleaner Production,2013,85:453-561.
[8]Xie Gang.Modeling decision processes of a green supply chain with regulation on energy saving level[J].Computers and Operations Research 2013,54:266-273.
[9]Du Shaofu,Zhu Lili,Liang Liang,et al.Emission-dependent supply chain and environmental-policy-making in a‘cap-and-trade’system[J].Energy Policy,2013,57:61-67.
[10]薛红燕,王怡,孙菲,等.基于多层委托-代理关系的环境规制研究[J].运筹与管理,2014,22(6):249-255.
[11]杜少甫,董骏峰,梁墚,等.考虑排放许可与交易的生产优化[J].中国管理科学,2009,17(3):81-86.
[12]赵道致,吕金鑫.考虑碳排放权限制与交易的供应链整体低碳化策略[J].工业工程与管理,2012,17(5):65-71.
[13]慕银平,李韵雅.寡头竞争企业的最优产量及碳排放量联合决策[J].系统工程学报,2014,29(1):1-7.
[14]谢鑫鹏,赵道致,刘永军.需求具有碳排放敏感性的低碳供应链收益共享寄售契约[J].系统管理学报,2015,24(1):108-115.
[15]令狐大智,叶飞.基于历史排放参照的碳配额分配机制研究[J].中国管理科学,2015,23(6):65-72.
[16]鲁力,陈旭.不同碳排放政策下基于回购合同的供应链协调策略[J].控制与决策,2014,29(12):2212-2220.
[17]周艳菊,黄雨晴,陈晓红,等.促进低碳产品需求的供应链减排成本分担模型[J].中国管理科学,2015,23(7):85-93.
[18]Du Shaofu,Tang Wenzhi,Zhao Jiajia,et al.Sell to whom?Firm’s green production in competition facing market segmentation[J].Annals of Operations Research,2016:1-30.
[19]Du Shaofu,Tang Wenzhi,Song Malin.Low-carbon production with low-carbon premium in cap-and-trade regulation[J].Journal of Cleaner Production,2016,134:652-662.
[2]孙振清,陈亚男,王国军.中国碳市场建设问题探源及对策研究[J].环境保护,2015,43(6):42-44.
[3]Mackenzie I A,Hanley N,Kornienko T.The optimal initial allocation of pollution permits:a relative performance approach[J].Environmental and Resource Economics,2008,39(3):265-282.
[4]Goulder L H,Hafstead M A C,Dworsky M.Impacts of alternative emissions allowance allocation methods under a federal cap-and-trade program[J].Journal of Environmental Economics and Management,2010,60(3):161-181.
[5]Hoen K M R,Tan T,Fransoo J C,et al.Effect of carbon emission regulations on transport mode selection under stochastic demand[J].Flexible Services and Manufacturing Journal,2014,26:170-195.
[6]Akoy A,Kucukoglu I,Ene S,et.al.Integrated emission and fuel consumption calculation model for green supply chain management[J].Procedia-Social and behavioral sciences,2014,109:1106-1109.
[7]Jin Mingzhou,Grand-Marulanda N A,Down I.The impact of carbon policies on supply chain design and logistics of a major retailer[J].Journal of Cleaner Production,2013,85:453-561.
[8]Xie Gang.Modeling decision processes of a green supply chain with regulation on energy saving level[J].Computers and Operations Research 2013,54:266-273.
[9]Du Shaofu,Zhu Lili,Liang Liang,et al.Emission-dependent supply chain and environmental-policy-making in a‘cap-and-trade’system[J].Energy Policy,2013,57:61-67.
[10]薛红燕,王怡,孙菲,等.基于多层委托-代理关系的环境规制研究[J].运筹与管理,2014,22(6):249-255.
[11]杜少甫,董骏峰,梁墚,等.考虑排放许可与交易的生产优化[J].中国管理科学,2009,17(3):81-86.
[12]赵道致,吕金鑫.考虑碳排放权限制与交易的供应链整体低碳化策略[J].工业工程与管理,2012,17(5):65-71.
[13]慕银平,李韵雅.寡头竞争企业的最优产量及碳排放量联合决策[J].系统工程学报,2014,29(1):1-7.
[14]谢鑫鹏,赵道致,刘永军.需求具有碳排放敏感性的低碳供应链收益共享寄售契约[J].系统管理学报,2015,24(1):108-115.
[15]令狐大智,叶飞.基于历史排放参照的碳配额分配机制研究[J].中国管理科学,2015,23(6):65-72.
[16]鲁力,陈旭.不同碳排放政策下基于回购合同的供应链协调策略[J].控制与决策,2014,29(12):2212-2220.
[17]周艳菊,黄雨晴,陈晓红,等.促进低碳产品需求的供应链减排成本分担模型[J].中国管理科学,2015,23(7):85-93.
[18]Du Shaofu,Tang Wenzhi,Zhao Jiajia,et al.Sell to whom?Firm’s green production in competition facing market segmentation[J].Annals of Operations Research,2016:1-30.
[19]Du Shaofu,Tang Wenzhi,Song Malin.Low-carbon production with low-carbon premium in cap-and-trade regulation[J].Journal of Cleaner Production,2016,134:652-662.