Innovative model analyzes financing impact on emission reduction efficiency in low-carbon supply chains, implying significant design choices.
Against the backdrop of carbon quota trading policies and Energy Performance Contracting (EPC), Energy Service Companies (ESCOs) engage in supply chain emission reduction via embedded low-carbon services. However, the impact mechanism of their financing mode selection on emission reduction efficiency and economic benefits has not been fully revealed, and there is a lack of support from a systematic theoretical and engineering design framework. Therefore, this study innovatively constructs a multi-agent Stackelberg game model with bank financing, green bond financing, and internal factoring financing. We incorporate the embedding degree, emission reduction cost coefficient, and financing mode selection into a unified analysis framework. The research findings are as follows: (1) There is a significant positive linear relationship between supply chain profit and the embedding degree. In contrast, the profit of ESCOs shows an inverted “U-shaped” change trend. Moreover, there is a sustainable cooperation threshold for each of the three financing modes. (2) Green bond financing can significantly increase the overall emission reduction rate of the industrial supply chain in high-embedding-degree scenarios. However, due to emission reduction investment cost pressure, ESCOs tend to choose bank financing. (3) The dynamic change of the emission reduction investment cost coefficient will trigger a reversal effect on the financing preferences of the supply chain and ESCOs. This study unveils the internal mechanism of multi-party decision-making in the low-carbon industrial supply chain and is supported by cross-country institutional evidence and comparative case-based analysis, providing a scientific basis and engineering design guidance for optimizing ESCO financing strategies, crafting incentive contracts, and enhancing government subsidy policies.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Deng et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: