This analysis demonstrates how carbon quota constraints impact pricing strategies in cross-border e-commerce, suggesting pathways for sustainability and profitability.
In the context of the accelerated global carbon neutrality initiative and the formal enactment of the European Union's Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM), the low-carbon transformation of cross-border e-commerce supply chains has become an inevitable trend. This study examines a dual-channel supply chain comprising manufacturers, e-commerce platforms, logistics service providers—including overseas warehouses and direct shipping—and consumers, all constrained by carbon quotas. Considering heterogeneity in consumer preferences for price sensitivity and environmental sustainability, demand functions are developed to differentiate between price-sensitive and green-preference consumers. A three-stage Stackelberg game model is constructed, with the platform as the leader and manufacturers as followers, to analyze optimal pricing and production strategies under carbon quota constraints. The model is solved via backward induction to obtain equilibrium solutions, which are validated through numerical case analysis. The findings indicate that: (1) Carbon quota constraints significantly influence supply chain pricing strategies and channel selection, compelling firms to internalize carbon costs into their decision-making processes; (2) Enhancing consumers' green preferences effectively incentivizes manufacturers to invest in emission reductions and provides a market foundation for platforms to implement green premium strategies; (3) As the leader, the platform's pricing and channel allocation strategies play a decisive role in the overall profitability and carbon emission performance of the supply chain. These insights offer theoretical contributions and strategic guidance for cross-border e-commerce enterprises aiming to optimize economic and environmental outcomes in alignment with the "dual carbon" objectives.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Qingqi Liu (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: