Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Examines cost-sharing and subsidy mechanisms to improve carbon reduction in a dual-channel supply chain, implying better environmental outcomes.
Against the increasingly severe global pollution and greenhouse effect, strengthening environmental governance and cutting carbon emissions has become a universal consensus. Under China’s “carbon peak and carbon neutrality” goals, this paper focuses on a dual-channel green supply chain comprising a manufacturer and a retailer, where market demand correlates linearly with retail price, carbon emissions and green sales efforts. We establish game models to derive and compare optimal decisions and profits of supply chain members under centralized and decentralized decisionmaking. Taking the decentralized model as a benchmark, we propose three coordination mechanisms: bidirectional cost sharing, government subsidy, and their combination. We further obtain optimal coordination factors to realize Pareto improvement, reduce carbon emissions and boost social welfare. Results show that an optimal direct sales ratio maximizes supply chain profit under decentralization; bidirectional cost sharing aligns carbon emissions and sales efforts with centralized decision-making; the integrated mechanism minimizes carbon emissions and sales efforts with minimal government subsidies. This paper innovates by proposing the integrated coordination mechanism and exploring the optimal combination of key factors to achieve a multi-win situation.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Hu et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: