PulseExploreJournal ClubDebatesTrendingResearchersJournals
Instagram
HomeExploreJournal ClubTrending
Synapse
⌘+K
Synapse
June 8, 2026International Journal of Low-Carbon Technologies0 citationsOpen Access

Optimizing strategic equity cooperation for low-carbon supply chain integration under cap-and-trade regulation

View Full Paper
WZWeisi ZhangJKJiahao KongWZWei Zhao

Key Points

  • This study aims to assess how different equity cooperation models affect carbon reduction and advertising strategies in supply chains under cap-and-trade regulations.
  • Evaluated complete centralization, decentralization, and three partial-centralization models (DS, US, CS) for supply chain entities.
  • Analyzed the impact of carbon trading prices on carbon reduction rates and advertising strategies.
  • Considered consumer sensitivity and equity distribution in strategic choices.
  • Carbon reduction rates generally increase with carbon trading prices, though excessively high prices can inhibit efforts.
  • Heightened sensitivity to low-carbon attributes boosts green investment, but high equity stakes may suppress strategic intensity.
  • The US model maximizes supply chain profits when both manufacturer and retailer hold substantial equity, surpassing profits seen in the DS model.

Abstract

Abstract Driven by intensifying global concerns regarding climate change, cap-and-trade regulations have been widely implemented to catalyze low-carbon economic transitions. Through equity cooperation, supply chain entities can mitigate double marginalization effects and enhance sustainable development. This study evaluates the impact of complete centralization (SC), decentralization (DC), and three partial-centralization models, specifically downstream-shareholding (DS), upstream-shareholding (US), and cross-shareholding (CS), on a manufacturer’s carbon reduction and a retailer’s green advertising strategies. The key findings indicate that carbon reduction rates generally increase with carbon trading prices; however, when carbon prices and abatement costs become excessively high, further price increases can paradoxically inhibit reduction efforts. Furthermore, while heightened consumer sensitivity to low-carbon attributes stimulates green investment, disproportionately high equity stakes may suppress strategic intensity. Finally, strategic choices in coordination are significantly influenced by equity distribution. When both the retailer and manufacturer maintain substantial equity holdings, the US model maximizes aggregate supply chain profits; otherwise, the CS model is preferred. Notably, total profitability under the US model consistently exceeds that achieved under the DS model, providing robust managerial insights for corporate integration and carbon policy refinement.

Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Cite This Study

Zhang et al. (2026) studied this question.

synapsesocial.com/papers/6a265cffad53cfb9357c640fhttps://doi.org/10.1093/ijlct/ctag049
Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Also Consider

Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context:

  1. 1Strategies for carbon reduction and advertising investments in partially centralized supply chains2026
  2. 2Research on Decision-Making Coordination of Green Supply Chain Based on Carbon Trading2025
  3. 3An Effective Three-Echelon Reverse Supply Chain Strategic Alliance under Cap-and-Trade Regulation2025
  4. 4Participant fairness concern and cost‐sharing‐based dual‐channel low‐carbon supply chain management2024 · 2 citations
  5. 5Research on Cost Sharing and Coordination of Low Carbon Supply Chain in the Context of Carbon Neutrality Strategy2024