Coordination of supply chains by option contracts: A cooperative game theory approach

Manufacturer–retailer supply chains commonly adopt a wholesale price mechanism. This mechanism, however, has often led manufacturers and retailers to situations of conflicts of interest. For example, due to uncertain market demand, retailers prefer to order flexibly from manufacturers so as to avoid incurring inventory costs and to be able to respond flexibly to market changes. Manufacturers, on the other hand, prefer retailers to place full orders as early as possible so that they can hedge against the risks of over- and under-production. Such conflicts between retailers and manufacturers can result in an inefficient supply chain. Motivated by this problem, we take a cooperative game approach in this paper to consider the coordination issue in a manufacturer–retailer supply chain using option contracts. Using the wholesale price mechanism as a benchmark, we develop an option contract model. Our study demonstrates that, compared with the benchmark based on the wholesale price mechanism, option contracts can coordinate the supply chain and achieve Pareto-improvement. We also discuss scenarios in which option contracts are selected according to individual supply chain members’ risk preferences and negotiating powers.     

Contracting with asymmetric demand information in supply chains

We solve a buyback contract design problem for a supplier who is working with a retailer who possesses private information about the demand distribution. We model the retailer’s private information as a space of either discrete or continuous demand states so that only the retailer knows its demand state and the demand for the product is stochastically increasing in the state. We focus on contracts that are viable in practice, where the buyback price being strictly less than the wholesale price, which is itself strictly less than the retail price. We derive the optimal (for the supplier) buyback contract that allows for arbitrary allocation of profits to the retailer (subject to the retailer’s reservation profit requirements) and show that in the limit this contract leads to the first-best solution with the supplier keeping the entire channel’s profit (after the retailer’s reservation profit).     

Supply quality management with wholesale price and revenue-sharing contracts under horizontal competition

In a number of industries (e.g., the airplane industry, aerospace industry, auto industry, or computer industry), certain suppliers essentially have a monopoly on the production technology for key components, and inevitably manufacturers in these industries have common suppliers. A key part of manufacturers’ work with suppliers concerns improving the quality of their respective products, which gives rise to a collaborative activity usually termed as “supply quality management”. When the manufacturers are competitors, they do not wish to see a common supplier dividing his involvement in quality improvement unequally between themselves and their rivals. However, as the suppliers collaborate with several manufacturers, it is highly questionable whether their efforts will be strictly equivalent for each manufacturer. In this paper, a non-cooperative dynamic game is formulated in which a single supplier collaborates with two manufacturers on design quality improvements for their respective products. The manufacturers compete for market demand both on price and design quality. The paper analyzes how each party should allocate resources for quality improvement over time. In order to take into account the potential coordinating power of the compensation scheme adopted in this type of decentralized setting, we compare the possible outcomes under a wholesale price contract and a revenue-sharing contract.     

Sales effort free riding and coordination with price match and channel rebate

This paper studies sales effort coordination for a supply chain with one manufacturer and two retail channels, where an online retailer offers a lower price and free-rides a brick-and-mortar retailer’s sales effort. The free riding effect reduces brick-and-mortar retailer’s desired effort level, and thus hurts the manufacturer’s profit and the overall supply chain performance. To achieve sales effort coordination, we designed a contract with price match and selective compensation rebate. We also examined other contracts, including the target rebate contract and the wholesale price discount contract, both with price match. The numerical analysis shows that the selective rebate outperforms other contracts in coordinating the brick-and-mortar retailer’s sales effort and improving supply chain efficiency.     

Contract type and decision right of sales promotion in supply chain management with a capital constrained retailer

From the practices of Chinese consumer electronics market, we find there are two key issues in supply chain management: The first issue is the contract type of either wholesale price contracts or consignment contracts with revenue sharing, and the second issue is the decision right of sales promotion (such as advertising, on-site shopping assistance, rebates, and post-sales service) owned by either manufacturers or retailers. We model a supply chain with one manufacturer and one retailer who has limited capital and faces deterministic demand depending on retail price and sales promotion. The two issues interact with each other. We show that only the combination (called as chain business mode) of a consignment contract with the manufacturer’s right of sales promotion or a wholesale price contract with the retailer’s right of sales promotion is better for both members. Moreover, the latter chain business mode is realized only when the retailer has more power in the chain and has enough capital, otherwise the former one is realized. But which one is preferred by customers? We find that the former is preferred by customers who mainly enjoy low price, while the latter is preferred by those who enjoy high sales promotion level.     

Preferences for contractual forms in supply chains

The supply chain contracting literature has focused on incentive contracts designed to align supply chain members’ individual interests. A key finding of this literature is that members’ preferences for contractual forms are often at odds: the upstream supplier prefers relatively complex contracts that can coordinate the supply chain; however, the downstream retailer prefers a wholesale price-only contract because it leaves more surplus (than does a coordinating contract), which the retailer can capture. This paper addresses the following question: Under what circumstances do suppliers and retailers prefer the same contractual form? We study supply chain members’ preferences for contractual forms under three different competitive settings in which multiple supply chains compete to sell substitutable products in the same market. Our analysis suggests that both upstream and downstream sides of the supply chain may prefer the same “quantity discount” contract, which would eliminate the conflicts of interest that otherwise typify contracting situations. More interesting still is that both sides may also prefer the wholesale price-only contract; this finding provides a theoretical explanation for why that inefficient (but simple) contract is widely adopted in supply chain transactions.     

Selling to the “Newsvendor” with a forecast update: Analysis of a dual purchase contract

We consider a supply chain in which a manufacturer sells to a procure-to-stock retailer facing a newsvendor problem with a forecast update. Under a wholesale price contract, the retailer waits as long as she can and optimally places her order after observing the forecast update. We show that the retailer’s wait-and-decide strategy, induced by the wholesale price contract, hinders the manufacturer’s ability to (1) set the wholesale price and maximize his profit, (2) hedge against excess inventory risk, and (3) reduce his profit uncertainty. To mitigate the adverse effect of wholesale price contract, we propose the dual purchase contract, through which the manufacturer provides a discount for orders placed before the forecast update. We characterize how and when a dual purchase contract creates strict Pareto improvement over a wholesale price contract. To do so, we establish the retailer’s optimal ordering policy and the manufacturer’s optimal pricing and production policies. We show how the dual purchase contract reduces profit variability and how it can be used as a risk hedging tool for a risk averse manufacturer. Through a numerical study, we provide additional managerial insights and show, for example, that market uncertainty is a key factor that defines when the dual purchase contract provides strict Pareto improvement over the wholesale price contract.     

Capacity reservation contracts for high-tech industry

Capacity reservation provides a risk-sharing mechanism that encourages a manufacturer to expand its capacity more. We propose a deductible reservation (DR) contract where customers reserve future capacity with a fee that is deductible from the purchasing price. The manufacturer’s ex ante announcement of the “excess” capacity that she will have in addition to the reservation amount is a unique feature of the DR contract. An individually rational DR contract that provides channel coordination always exists. Since there is a unique Nash equilibrium for the reservation game among multiple customers, the main results of the one-customer case can be extended to the n-customer case. The DR contract is compared with another capacity reservation contract called take-or-pay. While the manufacturer may gain more profit under a take-or-pay contract, there may not be a channel-coordinated contract that is also individually rational for the customer. Finally, the similarities and differences between the capacity reservation contracts and other well-known supply contracts are discussed.     

Wholesale pricing and evolutionarily stable strategies of retailers with imperfectly observable objective

This paper develops a one-population (indirect) evolutionary game model of a supply chain with one manufacturer/supplier and many (a sufficiently large number of) retailers to study how the retailer’s marketing objective depends on the wholesale price, its observability, the error probability of the observed result on the rival’s preference, the market scale and the retailer’s bargaining power. This paper also presents an algorithm for computing the optimal wholesale price of the manufacturer. We find that the profit (revenue) maximization behavior is an evolutionarily stable marketing strategy if the wholesale price is sufficiently high (low). Given an appropriate wholesale price, the revenue maximization behavior coexists with the profit maximization behavior in the retailers’ population. The larger the market scale, the stronger the motivation of the retailer to take profit maximization behavior due to a higher wholesale price. The cross effects of the retailer’s reservation payoff and the other factors should be considered in the decision process.     

Economic lot sizing: The capacity reservation model

Capacity reservation contracts allow a consumer to purchase up to a certain capacity at a unit price lower than that of the spot market, while the consumer’s excess orders are realized at the spot price. In this paper, we consider a lot sizing problem where the consumer places orders following a capacity reservation contract. In particular, we study the general problem and the polynomial time solvable special cases of the problem and propose corresponding algorithms for them.     

Pareto-optimal contracts for a supply chain with satisficing objectives

We analyse a decentralized supply chain consisting of a supplier and a retailer, each with a satisficing objective, that is, to maximize the probability of achieving a predetermined target profit. The supply chain is examined under two types of commonly used contracts: linear tariff contracts (including wholesale price contracts as special cases) and buy-back contracts. First, we identify the Pareto-optimal contract(s) for each contractual form. In particular, it is shown that there is a unique wholesale price that is Pareto optimal for both contractual types. Second, we evaluate the performance of the Pareto-optimal contracts. In contrast to the well-known results for a supply chain with the traditional expected profit objectives, we show that wholesale price contracts can coordinate the supply chain whereas buy-back contracts cannot. This provides an additional justification for the popularity of wholesale price contracts besides their simplicities and lower administration costs.     

Revenue-sharing versus wholesale price mechanisms under different channel power structures

We consider a supply chain channel with two manufacturers and one retailer. Each manufacturer can choose either a wholesale price contract or a revenue-sharing contract with the retailer. We discuss and compare the results of two different types of contracts under different channel power structures, to check whether it is beneficial for manufacturers to use revenue-sharing contracts under different scenarios. Then we consider a supply chain channel with one manufacturer and two retailers. Each retailer can choose either a wholesale price contract or a revenue-sharing contract with the manufacturer. We analyze the likely outcomes under different scenarios to discover whether it is beneficial to use revenue-sharing contracts.     

Buyback contracts with price-dependent demands: Effects of demand uncertainty

We explore buyback contracts in a supplier–retailer supply chain where the retailer faces a price-dependent downward-sloping demand curve subject to uncertainty. Differentiated from the existing literature, this work focuses on analytically examining how the uncertainty level embedded in market demand affects the applicability of buyback contracts in supply chain management. To this end, we seek to characterize the buyback model in terms of only the demand uncertainty level (DUL). With this new research perspective, we have obtained some interesting new findings for buyback. For example, we find that (1) even though the supply chain’s efficiency will change over the DUL with a wholesale price-only contract, it will be maintained constantly at that of the corresponding deterministic demand setting with buyback, regardless of the DUL; (2) in the practice of buyback, the buyback issuer should adjust only the buyback price in reaction to different DULs while leave the wholesale price unchanged as that in the corresponding deterministic demand setting; (3) only in the demand setting with an intermediate level of the uncertainty (which is identified quantitatively in Theorem 5), buyback provision is beneficial simultaneously for the supplier, the retailer, and the supply chain system, while this is not the case in the other demand settings. This work reveals that DUL can be a critical factor affecting the applicability of supply chain contracts.     

Ensuring responsive capacity: How to contract with backup suppliers

Firms that source from offshore plants frequently perceive the lack of reliability and flexibility to be among the major drawbacks of their strategy. To mitigate against imminent mismatches of uncertain supply and demand, establishing capacity hedges in the form of responsive backup suppliers is a way out that many firms follow. This article analyzes how firms should contract with backup suppliers, inducing the latter to install responsive capacity. We show that supply options are appropriate to achieve sourcing channel coordination under forced compliance, whereas any firm commitment contract imposes a deadweight loss on the system. Whereas price-only contracts are unable to coordinate the sourcing channel under voluntary compliance, utilization-dependent price-only contracts are. Under the former contract, a price-focused strategy on the part of the manufacturer turns out to diminish the system’s service level and possibly has negative implications on installed backup capacity, and not least on the manufacturer’s profit.     

Supply Function Equilibrium in Electricity Spot Markets with Contracts and Price Caps

In electricity wholesale markets, generators often sign long term contracts with purchasers of power in order to hedge risks. In this paper, we consider a market where demand is uncertain, but can be represented as a function of price together with a random shock. Each generator offers a smooth supply function into the market and wishes to maximize his expected profit, allowing for his contract position. We investigate supply function equilibria in this setting, using a model introduced by Anderson and Philpott. We study first the existence of a unique monotonically increasing supply curve that maximizes the objective function under the constraint of limited generation capacity and a price cap, and discuss the influence of the generators contract on the optimal supply curve. We then investigate the existence of a symmetric Nash supply function equilibrium, where we do not have to assume that the demand is a concave function of price. Finally, we identify the Nash supply function equilibrium which gives rise to the generators maximal expected profit. This work was supported by the Australian Research Council Grant RMG1965The authors would like to thank three anonymous referees for their helpful comments     

Call,put and bidirectional option contracts in agricultural supply chains with sales effort

This paper develops option contracts in a supplier-retailer agricultural supply chain where the market demand depends on sales effort. First, we examine a benchmark case of integrated supply chain with the loss rate. Second, we introduce three coordinating option contracts led by the supplier to reduce the retailer's risk, where the call option contract can reduce the shortage risk, the put option contract can reduce the inventory risk and the bidirectional option contract can reduce the bilateral risk. We find that both the optimal initial order quantity and the optimal option quantity increase with the sales effort and the option price will balance the influence of the loss rate on supply chain coordination. Furthermore, the bidirectional option price is the highest while its option quantity is the least, and the put option initial order quantity is the highest. Third, we also consider an option contract led by the retailer to reduce the supplier's wholesale risk. Among the above four option contracts, we find that the option quantity led by the retailer is the highest. Finally, the numerical examples present the impact of the parameters on the optimal decisions, and provide practical managerial insights to reduce the different risk in the agricultural supply chain.     

强制减排规制下基于碳减排利润增量分享契约的供应链协调研究

碳减排会增加制造商的成本,导致批发价和零售价提高,从而抑制市场需求。以此为背景,本文针对由一个制造商和一个零售商组成的供应链,研究了强制减排规制下考虑消费者低碳偏好时的供应链决策与协调。通过设计碳减排利润增量分享契约协调制造商和零售商的决策,实现帕累托改进,利用Rubinstein讨价还价模型最终确定减排利润分享比例。研究发现,实施碳减排利润分享契约能有效提高零售商的订货量,并降低批发价格;制造商的利润随着消费者低碳意识提高而提高;当净化率较低时,零售商的利润随消费者低碳意识提高而提高;当净化率较高时,零售商的利润随消费者低碳意识提高而降低;最后,论文通过数值模拟验证了碳减排利润分享契约的有效性。     

供应链中的生产能力投资风险分配

在供应链中,每个管理者都会面临各种各样的供应和需求不确定性.这些不确定性会造成生产能力的过剩或不足,从而导致很大的利益损失,但是未必每个公司都会面临生产能力投资风险.针对一个单生产商单零售商系统,本文分析了三种不同的合同设计（推进式批发价合同,拉动式批发价合同和期权合同）对生产商和零售商的利润和生产能力投资风险的影响,推进式批发价合同和拉动式批发价均不能协调供应链,故我们找到其帕累托集;而对于期权合同,它能够协调整个供应链并且整合推进式和拉动式两种批发价合同使得生产商和零售商共同承担生产能力投资风险.在分析的过程中,我们将结果与已有的结果进行了比较,指出了其异同之处.     

基于流程创新的供应链激励合同研究

针对由一个零售商两个制造商组成的竞争供应链,建立了零售商处于领导地位的Stackelberg博弈模型。分析了收益分享合同和成本分担合同下流程创新效率和竞争强度对流程创新水平和供应链成员利润的影响,并探讨了最优激励合同类型。研究发现,流程创新效率的降低会使得制造商流程创新水平和供应链成员利润降低;竞争强度的增大会使得制造商流程创新水平和供应链成员利润增加。此外,在流程创新效率较高和竞争强度较低时零售商提供收益分享合同有利,在流程创新效率较低和竞争强度较高时零售商提供成本分担合同有利。     

Sourcing decisions with capacity reservation contracts

By committing to long-term supply contracts, buyers seek to lower their purchasing costs, and have products delivered without interruption. When a long-term contract is available, suppliers are less pressured to find new customers, and can afford to charge a price lower than the prevailing spot market price. We examine sourcing decisions of a firm in the presence of a capacity reservation contract that this firm makes with its long-term supplier in addition to the spot market alternative. This contract entails delivery of any desired portion of a reserved fixed capacity in exchange for a guaranteed payment by the buyer. We investigate rational actions of the two parties under two different types of periodic review inventory control policies used by the buyer: the two-number policy, and the base stock policy. When typical demand probability distributions are considered, inclusion of the spot market source in the buyer’s procurement plan significantly reduces the capacity commitments from the long-term supplier.