Carbon footprint reduction in an e-commerce market: impacts of logistics service sharing

IF 6.7 2区 管理学 Q1 MANAGEMENT Omega-international Journal of Management Science Pub Date : 2024-09-27 DOI:10.1016/j.omega.2024.103205
Xuelian Qin , Zhixue Liu , Zhi Yang , Lin Tian
{"title":"Carbon footprint reduction in an e-commerce market: impacts of logistics service sharing","authors":"Xuelian Qin ,&nbsp;Zhixue Liu ,&nbsp;Zhi Yang ,&nbsp;Lin Tian","doi":"10.1016/j.omega.2024.103205","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>In the e-commerce market, green technology investment and carbon offset purchase are two widely-used approaches for reducing the carbon footprint of logistics services. However, implementing carbon footprint reduction in logistics services generally incurs heavy costs. To distribute heavy costs and improve resource utilization, a novel strategy of logistics service sharing has played an important role. Nevertheless, it is still unclear, in a co-opetitive e-commerce market, how to make use of different approaches and what the impacts of logistics service sharing are. To answer these questions, we develop an analytical model where an e-commerce platform and a third-party seller compete for consumers who care about both the selling price and the logistics service carbon footprint. We assume that the platform builds his own logistics service system and can adopt two different approaches to cut carbon footprint, while the seller needs to outsource logistics services to the TPL service provider or the platform. The analysis shows that without logistics service sharing, the platform may be more willing to purchase carbon offset as the offset cost increases, and the availability of carbon offset can prompt the platform to increase his investment in green technology. By contrast, with logistics service sharing, the platform will be less willing to purchase carbon offset as the offset cost increases, and the usage of carbon offset will induce him to invest less in green technology. These findings highlight that logistics service sharing can change the platform's preference toward the two approaches and modify the relationship between them. Furthermore, we find that logistic service sharing can provide a win-win outcome for the platform and the seller, but is not necessarily helpful for reducing the total carbon footprint in the e-commerce supply chain as well as increasing consumer surplus and social welfare.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":19529,"journal":{"name":"Omega-international Journal of Management Science","volume":"131 ","pages":"Article 103205"},"PeriodicalIF":6.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Omega-international Journal of Management Science","FirstCategoryId":"91","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0305048324001695","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MANAGEMENT","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

In the e-commerce market, green technology investment and carbon offset purchase are two widely-used approaches for reducing the carbon footprint of logistics services. However, implementing carbon footprint reduction in logistics services generally incurs heavy costs. To distribute heavy costs and improve resource utilization, a novel strategy of logistics service sharing has played an important role. Nevertheless, it is still unclear, in a co-opetitive e-commerce market, how to make use of different approaches and what the impacts of logistics service sharing are. To answer these questions, we develop an analytical model where an e-commerce platform and a third-party seller compete for consumers who care about both the selling price and the logistics service carbon footprint. We assume that the platform builds his own logistics service system and can adopt two different approaches to cut carbon footprint, while the seller needs to outsource logistics services to the TPL service provider or the platform. The analysis shows that without logistics service sharing, the platform may be more willing to purchase carbon offset as the offset cost increases, and the availability of carbon offset can prompt the platform to increase his investment in green technology. By contrast, with logistics service sharing, the platform will be less willing to purchase carbon offset as the offset cost increases, and the usage of carbon offset will induce him to invest less in green technology. These findings highlight that logistics service sharing can change the platform's preference toward the two approaches and modify the relationship between them. Furthermore, we find that logistic service sharing can provide a win-win outcome for the platform and the seller, but is not necessarily helpful for reducing the total carbon footprint in the e-commerce supply chain as well as increasing consumer surplus and social welfare.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
减少电子商务市场的碳足迹:物流服务共享的影响
在电子商务市场,绿色技术投资和碳补偿购买是两种广泛使用的减少物流服务碳足迹的方法。然而,在物流服务中实施碳足迹减排通常会产生高昂的成本。为了分摊沉重的成本,提高资源利用率,一种新颖的物流服务共享战略发挥了重要作用。然而,在合作竞争的电子商务市场中,如何利用不同的方法以及物流服务共享的影响如何,仍然是一个未知数。为了回答这些问题,我们建立了一个分析模型,在这个模型中,电子商务平台和第三方卖家共同争夺既关心销售价格又关心物流服务碳足迹的消费者。我们假设平台自建物流服务体系,并可采用两种不同的方法来减少碳足迹,而卖家则需要将物流服务外包给 TPL 服务提供商或平台。分析表明,在不共享物流服务的情况下,随着碳抵消成本的增加,平台可能更愿意购买碳抵消,而碳抵消的可用性会促使平台增加对绿色技术的投资。相比之下,在物流服务共享的情况下,随着碳补偿成本的增加,平台购买碳补偿的意愿会降低,碳补偿的使用会促使平台减少对绿色技术的投资。这些发现突出表明,物流服务共享会改变平台对两种方法的偏好,并改变两者之间的关系。此外,我们还发现,物流服务共享能为平台和卖方带来双赢的结果,但不一定有助于减少电子商务供应链中的总碳足迹以及增加消费者剩余和社会福利。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Omega-international Journal of Management Science
Omega-international Journal of Management Science 管理科学-运筹学与管理科学
CiteScore
13.80
自引率
11.60%
发文量
130
审稿时长
56 days
期刊介绍: Omega reports on developments in management, including the latest research results and applications. Original contributions and review articles describe the state of the art in specific fields or functions of management, while there are shorter critical assessments of particular management techniques. Other features of the journal are the "Memoranda" section for short communications and "Feedback", a correspondence column. Omega is both stimulating reading and an important source for practising managers, specialists in management services, operational research workers and management scientists, management consultants, academics, students and research personnel throughout the world. The material published is of high quality and relevance, written in a manner which makes it accessible to all of this wide-ranging readership. Preference will be given to papers with implications to the practice of management. Submissions of purely theoretical papers are discouraged. The review of material for publication in the journal reflects this aim.
期刊最新文献
Economically viable reshoring of supply chains under ripple effect The role of hubs and economies of scale in network expansion Evolutive multi-attribute decision making with online consumer reviews Managing supply disruptions for risk-averse buyers: Diversified sourcing vs. disruption prevention Elevating the corporate social responsibility level: A media supervision mechanism based on the Stackelberg-Evolutionary game model
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1